Questions about British Styles and Titles 3: Aug 2023 -


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Marengo

Administrator
Site Team
Joined
Aug 13, 2004
Messages
27,101
City
São Paulo
Country
Brazil
257px-Royal_Coat_of_Arms_of_the_United_Kingdom_%28Tudor_crown%29.svg.png

Arms of The United Kingdom

Welcome to the thread Questions about British Styles and Titles, Part 3

Commencing August 4th, 2022

The previous thread can be found here

Please take a look at the
TRF Community Rules & FAQs

· Only pictures that you have written permission to share can be posted here. You can post links to any pictures.
· It's a copyright violation to post translations of entire articles, so no more than 20% of an article
text should be posted, along with the link to the original article.
· We expect our members to treat each other, and the royals and persons in these threads, with respect.
· The Report Post button is for reporting inappropriate content in a post if no moderators or administrators are online.
· Threads should remain on topic. Posts which are irrelevant or disruptive
will be deleted or moved by one of the moderators.

***
 
Does anybody know what would the titles of the British Royal Family be if the pre-1917 rules were still in force? How many people would have royal titles?
 
Does anybody know what would the titles of the British Royal Family be if the pre-1917 rules were still in force? How many people would have royal titles?

Prior to 1917, existing letters patent stated that male-line grandchildren of sovereigns (letters patent of 1864) and children of oldest sons of Princes of Wales (letters patent of 1898) would be HRH Prince or Princess.

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/prince_highness_docs.htm

For other descendants, such as female-line grandchildren or male-line great-grandchildren of monarchs, there was no clearly stated rule and little in the way of precedent.

After Queen Victoria's male-line great-grandson Alastair was born in 1914, his grandmother had to ask whether he should be called a Prince. (King George V first said yes, then changed his mind.)

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

If we were to follow the latest pre-1917 precedents, then female-line grandchildren who were British nationals would be created Highnesses (and Princesses and Princes if they did not inherit that title from their father). That was the case for the British female-line grandchildren of Queen Victoria and her son King Edward VII. The female-line grandchildren of King Edward VII's son King George V were born after he issued his 1917 rules, and were therefore denied royal titles.

The same would apply to male-line descendants who were not children or grandchildren of a monarch, because in 1914 letters patent were issued creating the children of the German duke of Brunswick, who were great-great-great-grandchildren of King George III, British princes and princesses.

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/prince_highness.htm#Cumberland
 
Last edited:
The Connaughts lost out in 1917, but it didn’t matter as the only son, Prince Alistair died in ambiguous circumstances in Canada during WW2. If he had lived and married and had children then he would have remained an HRH. However his heir probably wouldn’t. Same with Prince Louis Battenberg who in 1917 lost his Princely title and became the Marquess of Milford Haven. His heir, George, (older brother of Louis Mountbatten may have become a Prince after him had there not been a World War, but of course a Prince of Battenberg was a German title.

Prince and Princess Arthur (Connaught) had one son, Alastair Arthur, who was styled as HH Prince Alastair of Connaught from his birth until 1917 when George V issued the new Letters Patent. This Letters Patent defined and limited the use of the HRH and the title Prince or Princess to the children of the sovereign, the grandchildren of the sovereign in the male line, and the eldest son of the eldest son of the Heir apparent. Prince Alistair lost his royal titles and became known as the Earl of Macduff, the secondary title for the Fife peerage, as he was heir apparent to his mother's dukedom.

(Alistair, who had many learning disabilities, among other issues, died in 1943, in Ottawa.)
 
Prior to 1917, existing letters patent stated that male-line grandchildren of sovereigns (letters patent of 1864) and children of oldest sons of Princes of Wales (letters patent of 1898) would be HRH Prince or Princess.

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/prince_highness_docs.htm

For other descendants, such as female-line grandchildren or male-line great-grandchildren of monarchs, there was no clearly stated rule and little in the way of precedent.

After Queen Victoria's male-line great-grandson Alastair was born in 1914, his grandmother had to ask whether he should be called a Prince. (King George V first said yes, then changed his mind.)

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

If we were to follow the latest pre-1917 precedents, then female-line grandchildren who were British nationals would be created Highnesses (and Princesses and Princes if they did not inherit that title from their father). That was the case for the British female-line grandchildren of Queen Victoria and her son King Edward VII. The female-line grandchildren of King Edward VII's son King George V were born after he issued his 1917 rules, and were therefore denied royal titles.
So if we went by the pre-1917 precedents we would have these people as prince/princess correct?

The children of HRH Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester (grandson of George V):
HH Prince Alexander of Gloucester (today Earl of Ulster)
HH Princess Davina of Gloucester (today Lady Davina Windsor)
HH Princess Rose of Gloucester, Mrs. Gilman (today Lady Rose Gilman)

The children of HRH Prince Edward, Duke of Kent (grandson of George V):
HH Prince George of Kent (today Earl of St. Andrews)
HH Princess Helen of Kent, Mrs. Taylor (today Lady Helen Taylor)
HH Prince Nicholas of Kent (today Lord Nicholas Windsor)

The children of HRH Prince Michael of Kent (grandson of George V):
HH Prince Frederick (today Lord Frederick Windsor)
HH Princess Gabriella, Mrs. Kingston (today Lady Gabriella Kingston)
 
Last edited:
I am also one for having female line descendants have titles. I think they should change that rule. It's really unfair.

However another question: Let's say Princess Margaret received titles for her children but her husband wasn't given a title. Would their children be titled "Princess Sarah of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" ?
 
If he had lived and married and had children then he would have remained an HRH. However his heir probably wouldn’t.

(I assume you mean HH.) I'm not sure. If King George V hadn't restricted royal titles as he did, I think it is possible that subsequent monarchs would have allowed all male-line descendants to be Princes(ses) for another generation or two. The title-downsizing trend did not reach most other European monarchies until the late 20th century, and the British monarchy had the Brunswick precedent for creating distant male-line descendants British princes (albeit under very different circumstances).


Prince and Princess Arthur (Connaught) had one son, Alastair Arthur, who was styled as HH Prince Alastair of Connaught from his birth until 1917 when George V issued the new Letters Patent.

Yes, but as the Heraldica article points out, those who styled him as Prince did so without the King's input, since King George V was not even consulted on Alastair's title until 1916.


However another question: Let's say Princess Margaret received titles for her children but her husband wasn't given a title. Would their children be titled "Princess Sarah of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" ?

If Princess Margaret's children (but not her husband) had been given Prince and Princess titles, the British royal court would most likely have styled them Prince David and Princess Sarah with no territorial designation. The situation would be comparable to the family of Princess Louise, the Princess Royal, whose daughters were formally styled Princess Alexandra and Princess Maud (though the press styled them as Princess Alexandra of Fife and Princess Maud of Fife because their father was the Duke of Fife).
 
Last edited:
(I assume you mean HH.) I'm not sure. If King George V hadn't restricted royal titles as he did, I think it is possible that subsequent monarchs would have allowed all male-line descendants to be Princes(ses) for another generation or two. The title-downsizing trend did not reach most other European monarchies until the late 20th century, and the British monarchy had the Brunswick precedent for creating distant male-line descendants British princes (albeit under very different circumstances).




Yes, but as the Heraldica article points out, those who styled him as Prince did so without the King's input, since King George V was not even consulted on Alastair's title until 1916.




If Princess Margaret's children (but not her husband) had been given Prince and Princess titles, the British royal court would most likely have styled them Prince David and Princess Sarah with no territorial designation. The situation would be comparable to the family of Princess Louise, the Princess Royal, whose daughters were formally styled Princess Alexandra and Princess Maud (though the press styled them as Princess Alexandra of Fife and Princess Maud of Fife because their father was the Duke of Fife).

Thank you! just one other question. If Lord Frederick Windsor was HH Prince Frederick today, would his daughters have titles or would they simply just be Maud Windsor?
 
Thank you! just one other question. If Lord Frederick Windsor was HH Prince Frederick today, would his daughters have titles or would they simply just be Maud Windsor?

Thank you for the interesting questions! With regard to the hypothetical timeline in which King George V allowed male-line great-grandchildren to be styled HH Princess and HH Prince after 1917: If we assume that the same marriages, births, etc. would have happened, then the issue of how to style British male-line great-great-grandchildren would have been decided in 1988, when HH Prince George of Kent (in real life: the Earl of Saint Andrews) had his first child Edward (in real life: Lord Downpatrick). It would therefore have been Queen Elizabeth II making the decision.

My guess (but your guess is as good as mine or anyone else's) is that she would have extended the HH Prince title to Edward and the other subsequent male-line great-great-grandchildren. In real life, she was extremely reluctant to take any legal action that could be perceived as amending King George V's 1917 rules, even when she was in fact deviating from them. Therefore, in your hypothetical timeline, I think she would have been very reluctant to be perceived as the monarch who ended the "tradition" of all male-line descendants using royal titles.
 
Princess Styles Question

I would like to ask, if a British Princess got married before her mom/dad become the monarch, she will be Princess X, Mrs. (Husband Surname).

So if her mom/dad finally become monarch, would she be entitled to “The Princess X, Mrs. Husband surname”or still remains as “Princess X, Mrs.Husband surname”?

For example, IF Charlotte married when Charles III still on the throne, she would be Princess Charlotte, Mrs.X, so when William become King, would Charlotte’s title changed to “The Princess Charlotte, Mrs. X”?

As “The” is the specific title for Monarch’s children.
 
Yes as far as I know.

Princess Alexandra, the Hon Mrs Angus Ogilvy (not quite what you're asking because she was never the daughter of a monarch of course)

vs

The Princess Anne, Mrs Mark Phillips (before becoming Princess Royal)

There are posters on here who are far more knowledgeable then me but that's my understanding.
 
Thank you! just one other question. If Lord Frederick Windsor was HH Prince Frederick today, would his daughters have titles or would they simply just be Maud Windsor?

An interesting question. In France they had the rank of Prince de Sang - anyone in legitimate male line descent from a monarch past the second generation.

Intriguingly there are no such people alive (apart from descendants of George v) who could be a prince de sang in Britain / England - I don't think! I might be wrong - there might be people in agnatic descent from medieval Scottish kings?

Maybe the Beauforts? But they were specifically excluded from the succession. And overseas there is the Albany line but their titles were stripped because of treason although they are still in the line of succession. The present Hannover line as well presumably.
 
Last edited:
Yes as far as I know.

Princess Alexandra, the Hon Mrs Angus Ogilvy (not quite what you're asking because she was never the daughter of a monarch of course)

vs

The Princess Anne, Mrs Mark Phillips (before becoming Princess Royal)

There are posters on here who are far more knowledgeable then me but that's my understanding.

No Princess Anne is not what I mean, she already have the “The” as her mother was The Queen.

What I mean are POW’s daughter, when she is still Monarch’s granddaughter, she is NOT entitled to have “The”, when she become Monarch’s daughter , she is entitled to that.

However, in recent 200 years, NO PoW daughter upgraded as Monarch’s daughter AFTER married, so I wonder if Charlotte get married during Charles’ reign, can she entitled to have “The” when William become King?

As Queen Maud of Norway was “Maud of Wales” her whole life and Princess Louise was granted Princess Royal, so they were not considered.
 
So if her mom/dad finally become monarch, would she be entitled to “The Princess X, Mrs. Husband surname”or still remains as “Princess X, Mrs.Husband surname”?

I don't see why she wouldn't get the "The," but there aren't any written rules for that, and I don't think there are any direct examples. I'm not sure how rigid the "The" custom even was going back over the decades.
 
Last edited:
No Princess Anne is not what I mean, she already have the “The” as her mother was The Queen.

What I mean are POW’s daughter, when she is still Monarch’s granddaughter, she is NOT entitled to have “The”, when she become Monarch’s daughter , she is entitled to that.

However, in recent 200 years, NO PoW daughter upgraded as Monarch’s daughter AFTER married, so I wonder if Charlotte get married during Charles’ reign, can she entitled to have “The” when William become King?

As Queen Maud of Norway was “Maud of Wales” her whole life and Princess Louise was granted Princess Royal, so they were not considered.

Queen Maud wasn't "Maud of Wales" her whole life though. After her marriage she became Princess Charles of Denmark and then, of course, Queen of Norway.
 
Last edited:
In earlier discussions it was pointed out that the 'the' previously wasn't reserved for the children of the monarch. Others werecalso referred to as The prince(ss).

I don't see a reason while under the current custom, a difference would be made between married or unmarried daughters at the time of the succession. Whether it will be used in practice will mainly depend on whether someone will have a higher title to use in daily life - such as Princess Royal or a peerage.
 
I would like to ask, if a British Princess got married before her mom/dad become the monarch, she will be Princess X, Mrs. (Husband Surname).

So if her mom/dad finally become monarch, would she be entitled to “The Princess X, Mrs. Husband surname”or still remains as “Princess X, Mrs.Husband surname”?

For example, IF Charlotte married when Charles III still on the throne, she would be Princess Charlotte, Mrs.X, so when William become King, would Charlotte’s title changed to “The Princess Charlotte, Mrs. X”?

As “The” is the specific title for Monarch’s children.

I don’t think there’s any difference. She is and will always be her father’s daughter.

Princess Mary got married after her father’s accession as monarch. Not quite the example you are looking for but she became HRH The Princess Mary - HRH The Princess Mary, The Princess Mary, Viscountess Lascelles - HRH The Princess Mary, Countess of Harewood - and HRH The Princess Royal, finally.
 
And overseas there is the Albany line but their titles were stripped because of treason although they are still in the line of succession. The present Hannover line as well presumably.

No, the Albany line is definitively excluded from in the line of succession to the British throne. :flowers: The children of the second Duke of Albany were not validly married under British law, so their descendants were born illegitimate as far as the UK is concerned. Illegitimate children are barred from the British throne.

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/TNA/HO_45_25238.htm

The Succession to the Crown Act legitimated some formerly illegitimate descendants, but it explicitly did not restore them to the line of succession to the throne.

Refer to this post for a full explanation:
https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...tles-1-ending-2022-a-7948-41.html#post2465210
 
Last edited:
I don’t think there’s any difference. She is and will always be her father’s daughter.

Princess Mary got married after her father’s accession as monarch. Not quite the example you are looking for but she became HRH The Princess Mary - HRH The Princess Mary, The Princess Mary, Viscountess Lascelles - HRH The Princess Mary, Countess of Harewood - and HRH The Princess Royal, finally.

At the time Princess Mary married the Earl of Harewood, there was no custom to only refer to children of monarchs as "The". That was invented by Elizabeth II.

For example, see the program for King George VI's coronation in 1937. The King's daughters are referred to as "Her Royal Highness Princess Elizabeth" and "Her Royal Highness Princess Margaret Rose" (without any "The"), while Princess Alice (a daughter of a monarch's younger son, similar to Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie today) is referred to as "H.R.H. the Princess Alice Mary Victoria Augusta Pauline, Countess of Athlone".

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/34453/supplement/7031
 
All of the quoted posts were originally made in the Future of the Norwegian Monarchy thread:

It's sad that female members still lose their "royal status" after marrying commoners. What would happen to Princess IA if she chose to marry a commoner? Would the Royal House make him a Prince of Norway?

What do you mean by "what´s happening to Ingrid"?! Princess Elizabeth of Great Britain married a certain Philip Mountbatten, former Prince of Greece (before the marriage, he he had to give up his royal titles, so in 1947 he was a de facto commoner when he married Elizabeth and was once more created a Royal Highness by George VI the night before the wedding) and became Queen of one of the most prestigious thrones on this planet. Ragnhild of Norway married a commoner and remained a Princess, as well as her sister Astrid.
Princess Margaret married a photographer and remained HRH The Princess Margaret.
Both Beatrix of the Netherlands as well as Margrethe of Denmark married noble, but NO ROYAL, men (from a royal point of view Counts, Barons etc. are "commoners", too) and both became Queens Regnant. [...]

Princess Ragnhild was kicked out of the Royal House (meaning that yes, she remained a Princess, but she lost her appanage, tax exemption, HRH, and option of being a full-time working royal) for marrying a commoner in 1953 - six years after Princess Elizabeth of the UK married her de jure (not de facto, in my opinion) temporarily commoner husband in 1947.

The same happened to Princess Astrid (except that she was allowed to remain a working royal simply because there was no other female royal to take the role of first lady at the time) in 1961 - the year after Princess Margaret married undisputed commoner (though he was stepson of an earl) Antony Armstrong-Jones in 1960.

I think that demonstrates that the King of Norway did not feel that he was bound by the decisions of the King of Great Britain in regards to what happened to female royals who married commoners.

Likewise, King Frederik IX of Denmark (the king at the time of Margrethe II's marriage) did make a distinction between nobility and true commoners. During his reign, marriages of members of the Danish Royal House to nobles all received his official approval, but marriages to commoners did not, which meant that those who married commoners (Prince Oluf, Prince Flemming, Prince Ingolf and Prince Christian) lost their place in line to the crown and became Counts of Rosenborg, but those who married non-royal nobles did not.


Prince Philip initially took on a last name to work in the navy and he didn’t need to change his name, his uncle advised him to. In any case, Philip was not a commoner in anyway given his direct patrilineal legitimate descent from the Greek royal family which was a branch of the Danish royal house. Yes he gave up his titles because at that time the BRF was not going to change their last name and he was joining the BRF and he wasn’t going to rule Greece at any point. He might have temporarily gotten a last name and made a Prince of the U.K as well as Duke, but Philip was not necessarily in the same box as Claus, Daniel, or Antony Armstrong-Jones.

Philip didn't have to give up his titles, it was due to the snobbishness of the British establishment that he did. As far as they were concerned he was a foriegner and the fact that he was from two Royal Families that had been on the throne longer than the Windsors really irked them. He was treated really badly with Churchill keeping him from the inner workings of the Royal family, and the Queen Mother, not a very nice person, referreing to him as "the Greek."

Prince Philip worked in the British navy under the name "Philip, Prince of Greece".

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-...ge-life-profile-of-prince-philip-1563268.html

If he legally lost his Greek and Danish royal status before obtaining British royal status then he was a commoner in one "way" (specifically, in the legal way) for that period.

But again, regardless of why Prince Philip of Greece renounced his birth titles, I do not believe it will influence the decisions about Princess Ingrid Alexandra's potential marriage, nearly 100 years later, in any way.
 
Last edited:
This is a continuation of the previous post. All the quoted posts were originally made in the "Future of the Norwegian Monarchy" thread. The context was a question about the potential marriage of Princess Ingrid Alexandra.

Prince Philip was from the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg but the real reason that his uncle, Lious Mountbatten, wanted him to change his name was a purely selfish reason. He thought that if Philip adopted his mother's family name then, as a royal prince, his children would take that name and the Mountbattens would become the royal house when Charles became King. But Mountbatten had a big mouth and apparantly used to brag that his family would sit on the throne one day. This got back to Queen Mary who persuaded her son, King George VI, to keep the name Windsor for future generations. King Charles should actually be the first monarch of the House of Glucksburg.

It was Queen Elizabeth II who was persuaded by the Government to issue the proclamation declaring that the royal family name would remain Windsor in 1952.

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/39513/page/2013

The name of the Royal Houses of Norway and Greece, taken from the name of the Royal House of Denmark from which they descended, is the House of Glücksburg (not Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg):

https://www.royalcourt.no/seksjon.html?tid=28435&sek=27259

"The Royal House of Norway belongs to the House of Glücksburg. The members of the Norwegian Royal House are Their Majesties King Harald and Queen Sonja and Their Royal Highnesses Crown Prince Haakon, Crown Princess Mette-Marit and Princess Ingrid Alexandra."​

I don't expect the Mountbatten/Windsor controversy to be relevant to whatever decisions are made about Princess Ingrid Alexandra and her children. Given that King Harald did not even want the spare of the previous generation (Princess Märtha Louise) to take her husband's surname, I can't imagine he would care that a deceased British royal family member might object to a queen regnant passing on the house name to her children.


It is actually a gray area. Theoretically Queen Elizabeth II declared that the name of the Royal House would continue to be House of Windsor, but the legal surname of Philip's descendants in male line, whenever they need to use a surname, is Mountbatten-Windsor, and they have actually used that family name many times, including in marriage certificates. So I would say Dickie's goal was at least partially achieved.

Queen Elizabeth II's declaration did not apply to the members of the Royal House of Norway, and its members are unofficially exempted from being legally registered with any surname, so unless that changes, that will not be an issue if and when Princess Ingrid Alexandra has children who are members of the Royal House (whose name I expect will remain Glücksburg).
 
Last edited:
Continuing with the posts made about British titles/names/marriages in the "Future of the Norwegian Monarchy" thread as part of the discussion about the potential marriage of Princess Ingrid Alexandra:

Yes, he did not have to but due to a longstanding rule in the British royal family any man that marries a reigning queen could only be referred to as a Prince Consort.

Can you imagine him being titled King Philip? The title of King is only given to a monarch who inherits the throne and can reign like Charles

Yes, I can, and in my opinion the British rule is not all that longstanding since it was at least discussed between Queen Victoria and her government.

In any case, Prince Philip's title will not prevent Norwegians from discussing whether Princess Ingrid Alexandra's husband should be called Prince or King. In the following article from 2004 debating the title of a possible future husband of the then-newborn princess, neither the people who favor Prince nor the people who favor King make any reference at all to Prince Philip or the UK in general.

https://web.archive.org/web/20040309173814/https://www.siste.no/Innenriks/article855372.ece
 
Last edited:
According to the royal laws, any woman who marry an member of the Royal Family automatically not receive the title of Princess. Is this true?
 
According to the royal laws, any woman who marry an member of the Royal Family automatically not receive the title of Princess. Is this true?

There is no specific law on the titles of royal wives, but under the general British custom, which is so ancient that it is generally regarded as unwritten law, a woman who marries a higher-ranking man takes on the rank of her husband and the female form of his title.

For example, a non-royal woman who marries a man who is HRH, duke and prince becomes HRH, duchess and princess. Since the British royal family prefers to use the duke/duchess title (if any) rather than the prince/princess title, Birgitte for example is styled HRH The Duchess of Gloucester even though she is also a princess.

Quoting the government's explanation from 1923:

]In reply to your letter of yesterday as to the style, title and signature of Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon after her marriage, I am desired by the Home Secretary to say that in his view there is no question that, under the settled general rule of a wife taking the status of her husband, Lady Elisabeth will, on her marriage, automatically become "Her Royal Highness", and will acquire the status of a Princess. She will not, of course, use that style any more than the Duke of York uses the style of Prince, and will become "Her Royal Highness The Duchess of York".​

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/TNA/HO_144_22945.htm
 
The interesting thing with this bill, for me, is that that bill targeted specific actions by those stripped of their titles - fighting against Britain in WWI and it ceased to be an operative bill at the end of WWI.

I wonder what was the point of that law given that, probably precisely because they were not British and had no particular reason to care about the legal decisions taken by an enemy country, the German relatives simply ignored it (and the 1917 Letters Patent two years earlier) and persisted in using their removed British titles.

The Duke of Cumberland continued to use the title of Duke of Cumberland for the rest of his life, the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas use the predicate His and Her Highness to this day, and the Brunswicks (now the Hanovers) still carry "Prince/Princess of Great Britain and Ireland" as part of their legal German surname.
 
The royal styles & titles (prince, HRH) are entirely in the gift of the sovereign & can be given or taken away at HM’s pleasure. Recently demonstrated by The Queen of Denmark.

The Queen of Denmark isn't a valid precedent as the rules in different countries are not all the same.

The better precedent is George V who removed HH and HRH when he did his 1917 rules.

I fully agree, but the principle ought to apply in both directions. As it is, the British royals are frequently treated as a valid precedent by people who are discussing the titles of royals in different countries.

For example, in the discussions about the late Prince Henrik's wish to be styled King in the same manner that the previous Danish consort was styled Queen, there were constant comments along the line of "Philip (Duke of Edinburgh) was never King, so why should Henrik be?".

And there have been numerous comments such as "Why do Princess Madeleine's children need titles? Princess Anne's children didn't get one".
 
I wonder what was the point of that law given that, probably precisely because they were not British and had no particular reason to care about the legal decisions taken by an enemy country, the German relatives simply ignored it (and the 1917 Letters Patent two years earlier) and persisted in using their removed British titles.

The Duke of Cumberland continued to use the title of Duke of Cumberland for the rest of his life, the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas use the predicate His and Her Highness to this day, and the Brunswicks (now the Hanovers) still carry "Prince/Princess of Great Britain and Ireland" as part of their legal German surname.


Many former ruling families (in Austria, Greece, Italy, etc.) "use" titles that are now no longer legally recognized in their countries of origin. I see it as a private matter. The question of the Hanovers using "Prince/Princess of Great Britain and Ireland" is bit more complicated because it is part of their legal name in Germany and incorporated as such after World War 1, which can be seen as controversial.


In any case, the purpose of the law and the LPs issued under it was to end all rights and privileges associated with the use of those titles in the United Kingdom, which is a territory under the jurisdiction of the British Parliament and the British monarch. If a country ceased to pass laws that are enforceable in its own territory simoly because other countries will ignore or not enforce them, then that country would be giving up its sovereignty and giving other countries a de facto veto over its legislative process.
 
Interesting points.

The fact that the British monarch can grant or remove royal styles & titles at will might surprise a lot of people who think that being a prince/HRH is a "birthright" (suggesting inalienability) when really it's best thought of as being a privilege that can be revoked.

The Queen of Denmark & The King of Sweden are able to do the same as recent decisions show. I wonder if all monarchs have this power?
 
The fact that the British monarch can grant or remove royal styles & titles at will might surprise a lot of people who think that being a prince/HRH is a "birthright" (suggesting inalienability) when really it's best thought of as being a privilege that can be revoked.

The Queen of Denmark & The King of Sweden are able to do the same as recent decisions show. I wonder if all monarchs have this power?

In Japan, all rules and decisions about royal titles are established by act of parliament. In the Netherlands, parliament institutes general regulations concerning royal titles, with decisions in individual cases being taken by the monarch. In Liechtenstein, the reigning prince requires approval from adult male family members to amend the house constitution, which sets the rules of titles.

Regardless of the system of regulation, I agree it is misleading to conceive of royal titles as a "birthright" (as well as classist).


In any case, the purpose of the law and the LPs issued under it was to end all rights and privileges associated with the use of those titles in the United Kingdom, which is a territory under the jurisdiction of the British Parliament and the British monarch. If a country ceased to pass laws that are enforceable in its own territory simoly because other countries will ignore or not enforce them, then that country would be giving up its sovereignty and giving other countries a de facto veto over its legislative process.

You make a good point that generally speaking, countries can and should pass laws even if they are not enforceable in other countries. But in this case, was there any real need to end all rights and privileges associated with the use of those titles within the United Kingdom? The "enemy" family members were not in the United Kingdom, and I'd think nobody would have expected them to turn up in the UK after the war and attempt to claim rights and privileges.
 
I wonder what was the point of that law given that, probably precisely because they were not British and had no particular reason to care about the legal decisions taken by an enemy country, the German relatives simply ignored it (and the 1917 Letters Patent two years earlier) and persisted in using their removed British titles.

The Duke of Cumberland continued to use the title of Duke of Cumberland for the rest of his life, the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas use the predicate His and Her Highness to this day, and the Brunswicks (now the Hanovers) still carry "Prince/Princess of Great Britain and Ireland" as part of their legal German surname.


I realize I’m jumping into this conversation rather late, but I just finished reading an article on this topic:

Ann Lyon, “A Reaction to Popular Hysteria: The Titles Deprivation Act 1917,” Liverpool Law Review,Spring-Summer 2000, 22:173-207.

It’s cited on Francois Velde’s Heraldica page: https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/deprivation1917.htm

In sum, Lyon states the Titles Deprivation Act was passed in response to strong anti-German feelings among the British public during World War I.

In other words, neither the British government nor King George V were really interested in depriving the Dukes of Cumberland and Albany of their British titles, or otherwise "punishing" them. They were simply acquiescing to public demands that something be done.

Initially, the government resisted in deference to the wishes of King George V, who found it "petty and spiteful," although he agreed to follow the Prime Minister’s advice. Lyon believes the government changed its stance because of the conviction and execution of Roger Casement for treason. “But now the Government, having allowed one individual with divided loyalties, Roger Casement, to hang for treason, could no longer avoid action against other high profile individuals with dual allegiances, merely because they happened to be the King’s close relations.”

Anti-German sentiment (as we know) also led to the resignation of Prince Louis of Battenberg as First Sea Lord and eventually George V renounced his German titles and adopted a British surname as did the Battenbergs and Tecks.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom