Questions about British Styles and Titles 3: Aug 2023 -

[Ista]

A discussion regarding the Sussex family and their use of styles and titles has been moved : Titles and Styles of the Sussex Family 1

A reminder that any discussion about the Sussex family should be posted on their own thread.

 

[Sunnystar]

In ten years the Gloucesters and the Kents will likely be gone. Maybe the York girls will be asked to fill their place. Archie is a grandchild of a monarch and the heir to a royal dukedom like the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent. Do you think we may actually get a generation where only the children of the monarch and their spouses take on royal duties?

The Edinburgh children could always take on their parents’ duties though I don’t know if they would need to start using their royal titles to do so.

I think it is far more likely that we will see the York sisters (they're hardly 'girls' at this point, are they?) step in to fill in with royal duties, perhaps on an ad hoc basis, and the public probably won't bat much of an eye since they've been styled & titled as HRH Princesses their entire lives, even with all the baggage that comes with their father's ignominy - their mum has done a fairly good job of rehabilitating her reputation and keeping her nose clean in the last 10-15 years, IMO.

I'm not sure that I think the Edinburgh children would NEED to start using their royal titles but instead just add the HRH styling to their current titles, which are the same as that of the children of a non-royal Duke. But, again, I think that it's more likely they'd step in to handle royal duties on an ad hoc basis. Between the four grandchildren of Elizabeth who are allowed to use the HRH Prince/Princess style & title per the 1917 LP, they could probably tag team enough to pick up the work of the Gloucesters & the Duke of Kent.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

This part of the British Passport Office guidance on titles is interesting, given all the past discussions about birth (and marriage and death) certificates:

"Titles of nobility on birth certificates

You, the examiner, must not accept that a title on a United Kingdom birth certificate is a title of nobility, without evidence that the title is:

• genuine
• held by the customer

The General Register Office (GRO) does not ask for evidence to add a title to the birth certificate when a birth is registered. If a title is included on a birth certificate, it has not been authenticated or accepted as genuine (see Description of a title as part of a name)."

Titles

www.gov.uk

If people are permitted to put whatever title they like on birth certificates, without being required to prove that the title is genuine, I would guess the same applies to marriage and death certificates.

 

[Prinsara]

If people are permitted to put whatever title they like on birth certificates, without being required to prove that the title is genuine, I would guess the same applies to marriage and death certificates.

Why would you be allowed to do all of that for various form of legal documentation, but passports (which generally rely on such documentation) are more stringent?

 

[meeralakshmi]

I think it is far more likely that we will see the York sisters (they're hardly 'girls' at this point, are they?) step in to fill in with royal duties, perhaps on an ad hoc basis, and the public probably won't bat much of an eye since they've been styled & titled as HRH Princesses their entire lives, even with all the baggage that comes with their father's ignominy - their mum has done a fairly good job of rehabilitating her reputation and keeping her nose clean in the last 10-15 years, IMO.

I'm not sure that I think the Edinburgh children would NEED to start using their royal titles but instead just add the HRH styling to their current titles, which are the same as that of the children of a non-royal Duke. But, again, I think that it's more likely they'd step in to handle royal duties on an ad hoc basis. Between the four grandchildren of Elizabeth who are allowed to use the HRH Prince/Princess style & title per the 1917 LP, they could probably tag team enough to pick up the work of the Gloucesters & the Duke of Kent.

Until Edward dies James won’t be The Right Honourable The Earl of Wessex but simply Earl of Wessex. So I guess his hypothetical title would be HRH James Mountbatten-Windsor, Earl of Wessex and Louise’s would be HRH Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor? I don’t think they would allow that, I think the Edinburgh children would be required to use their royal titles to use HRH. Philip was a special case, he is the only person to have held a British HRH without being a prince/princess and that was because the government didn’t want to make a foreign prince with a controversial family background a prince of the UK. Elizabeth had to plead with the government to eventually give him that title. That said if they could make him an HRH without making him a prince they should make prince/princess consorts (which Philip wasn’t) HM to put them on the same level as king/queen consorts.

 

[Sunnystar]

Until Edward dies James won’t be The Right Honourable The Earl of Wessex but simply Earl of Wessex. So I guess his hypothetical title would be HRH James Mountbatten-Windsor, Earl of Wessex and Louise’s would be HRH Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor? I don’t think they would allow that, I think the Edinburgh children would be required to use their royal titles to use HRH. Philip was a special case, he is the only person to have held a British HRH without being a prince/princess and that was because the government didn’t want to make a foreign prince with a controversial family background a prince of the UK. Elizabeth had to plead with the government to eventually give him that title. That said if they could make him an HRH without making him a prince they should make prince/princess consorts (which Philip wasn’t) HM to put them on the same level as king/queen consorts.

Why wouldn't it be allowed? They've always used the courtesy titles available to any son & daughter of a hereditary peer. Their father remains a hereditary peer. The TITLE is not the same as the STYLE. I don't see a problem in splitting the difference of having them use the HRH style as part-time working royals (if that comes to pass) while continuing to TITLE them with the courtesy titles available to them as the son & daughter of a hereditary peer.

Also, Elizabeth did not have to "plead" with the government to give Philip the title of Prince. She made him a Prince in 1957 - a full ten years after their marriage and 5 years after she ascended the throne. The reasons for the delay in elevating him to Prince Philip are unknown. What is known is that some palace courtiers did not care for Philip as a potential spouse. George VI seems to have believed that Philip did not NEED the Prince title as the substantive peerage of The Duke of Edinburgh superseded any Princely title. In fact, that is the truth of the matter and has been the case for a few hundred years now. Prince/Princess is something you use when the person in question does not have any substantive peerage of their own.

 

[meeralakshmi]

Also, Elizabeth did not have to "plead" with the government to give Philip the title of Prince. She made him a Prince in 1957 - a full ten years after their marriage and 5 years after she ascended the throne. The reasons for the delay in elevating him to Prince Philip are unknown. What is known is that some palace courtiers did not care for Philip as a potential spouse. George VI seems to have believed that Philip did not NEED the Prince title as the substantive peerage of The Duke of Edinburgh superseded any Princely title. In fact, that is the truth of the matter and has been the case for a few hundred years now. Prince/Princess is something you use when the person in question does not have any substantive peerage of their own.

Duke of Edinburgh: Title of Prince

Here are the correspondences surrounding the upgrading of Philip’s title.

 

[meeralakshmi]

Just a technical note: Contrary to popular belief, there is no distinction in the UK between a “style” and a “title”.

The 1917 Letters Patent refer to HRH as “the style title or attribute of Royal Highness” and to Prince/Princess as “the titular dignity of Prince or Princess”.

This wasn’t the case for Philip.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

This wasn’t the case for Philip.

HRH is referred to as a "style title and attribute" in the letters patent creating Philip a British HRH as well:

"Our most dear and beloved Cousin SIR PHILIP MOUNTBATTEN Knight of Our Most Noble Order of the Garter Lieutenant in Our Navy shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style title or attribute of ROYAL HIGHNESS in addition to any other appellations and titles of honour which to him belong or at any time hereafter may belong And We do hereby authorize and empower the said Sir Philip Mountbatten henceforth at all times to assume and use and to be called and named by the style title or attribute of His Royal Highness"

Royal Styles and Titles of Great Britain: Documents

heraldica.org

 

[meeralakshmi]

HRH is referred to as a "style title and attribute" in the letters patent creating Philip a British HRH as well:

"Our most dear and beloved Cousin SIR PHILIP MOUNTBATTEN Knight of Our Most Noble Order of the Garter Lieutenant in Our Navy shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style title or attribute of ROYAL HIGHNESS in addition to any other appellations and titles of honour which to him belong or at any time hereafter may belong And We do hereby authorize and empower the said Sir Philip Mountbatten henceforth at all times to assume and use and to be called and named by the style title or attribute of His Royal Highness"​

​

Royal Styles and Titles of Great Britain: Documents

heraldica.org

However the government explicitly stated that Philip wasn’t a prince and it took a lot of back-and-forth between Elizabeth and the government to give him a princely title.

 

[meeralakshmi]

In the case of the Harewoods, and also the Phillipses or the Snowdons, I believe that there was an additional gender issue in play because they descended from a monarch in maternal line. Although they were many times included as part of the "extended family" of the King/ Queen in social or family events, the patrilineal definition of family meant that they belonged (or belong) to a different family than the Windsors or the Mountbatten-Windsors, which is by the way why they use a different legal surname.

The same logic applies now, I suppose, to the Mapelli Mozzi or the Brooksbank families.

Hopefully this will be figured out for Charlotte, I can’t imagine she would be happy about her family being denied titles and sidelined in favor of Louis’ when she’s the official spare.

 

[meeralakshmi]

Philip was a special case, he is the only person to have held a British HRH without being a prince/princess

Since Tim is a working royal in all but name they could create him a duke for life with the style of HRH. That way he would finally be acknowledged as a working royal and he wouldn’t receive a greater title than what wives of princes currently do (they aren’t made HRH Princess (name) and at the moment men can’t receive titles via marriage so to make Tim a prince he would have to be created a prince in his own right which is a greater honor than wives of princes ever receive). Hopefully this will be figured out by the time Charlotte gets married.

 

[meeralakshmi]

Astrid of Belgium, Benedikte of Denmark (her husband and kids were offered Danish princely titles which she and her husband declined), and Madeleine of Sweden (her husband declined the use of his wife’s title because becoming a Swedish citizen would interfere with his work but their kids are still princes and princesses of Sweden) are good examples to go off of for Charlotte. I didn’t include Spain because gender-equal titulature has always been a thing there whereas Belgium, Denmark, and Sweden recently adapted things.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

However the government explicitly stated that Philip wasn’t a prince and it took a lot of back-and-forth between Elizabeth and the government to give him a princely title.

What I meant was that some say HRH is a style and Prince is a title and it is incorrect to call HRH a title, but as the Letters Patent indicate, HRH is officially labeled as both a "style" and a "title". (And Buckingham Palace has also referred to HRH as a title in various recent announcements, including the one about the Sussexes' use of HRH.)

 

[meeralakshmi]

What I meant was that some say HRH is a style and Prince is a title and it is incorrect to call HRH a title, but as the Letters Patent indicate, HRH is officially labeled as both a "style" and a "title". (And Buckingham Palace has also referred to HRH as a title in various recent announcements, including the one about the Sussexes' use of HRH.)

I see, then could HM currently be a title for a prince/princess consort (or even a plain consort like Philip though HM wouldn’t make much sense with his title)?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I see, then could HM currently be a title for a prince/princess consort (or even a plain consort like Philip though HM wouldn’t make much sense with his title)?

I don’t think there exist any legal restrictions on the British monarch’s freedom to act on styles, titles, attributes, titular dignities or whatever people prefer to call these things, as long as their decisions have no material legal consequences other than changing the style, title or whatever.

The unwritten rule against the monarch removing peerages without Parliament's consent came about because peerages had important legal rights and responsibilities associated with them, and removing peerages was too politically sensitive an action for the monarch to take unilaterally.

Being an HM, HRH, Prince or Princess is a status symbol, but unlike a peerage, it has no substantive effects. A British citizen called HRH Prince Archie of Sussex has no more legal rights and privileges than a British citizen called Mr. Peter Phillips.

There is of course the general rule (not specific to title issues) that the monarch should not take any action the government has advised against. But I doubt any government these days would care enough about who is or is not called HM or HRH to weigh in on the matter. None of the governments objected to Charles Prince of Wales' announcement that his wife would use the title HRH The Princess Consort (the government in 2005 agreed she would have the legal status of queen, but also supported the idea that she could choose which title to use), despite the controversy that announcement caused among royal watchers.

 

[meeralakshmi]

I don’t think there exist any legal restrictions on the British monarch’s freedom to act on styles, titles, attributes, titular dignities or whatever people prefer to call these things, as long as their decisions have no material legal consequences other than changing the style, title or whatever.

The unwritten rule against the monarch removing peerages without Parliament's consent came about because peerages had important legal rights and responsibilities associated with them, and removing peerages was too politically sensitive an action for the monarch to take unilaterally.

Being an HM, HRH, Prince or Princess is a status symbol, but unlike a peerage, it has no substantive effects. A British citizen called HRH Prince Archie of Sussex has no more legal rights and privileges than a British citizen called Mr. Peter Phillips.

There is of course the general rule (not specific to title issues) that the monarch should not take any action the government has advised against. But I doubt any government these days would care enough about who is or is not called HM or HRH to weigh in on the matter. None of the governments objected to Charles Prince of Wales' announcement that his wife would use the title HRH The Princess Consort (the government in 2005 agreed she would have the legal status of queen, but also supported the idea that she could choose which title to use), despite the controversy that announcement caused among royal watchers.

So theoretically there would be nothing stopping the next male and/or first same-sex consort from being made king/queen consort and being crowned? Or Charlotte’s husband from receiving a courtesy title?

 

[meeralakshmi]

I see, then could HM currently be a title for a prince/princess consort (or even a plain consort like Philip though HM wouldn’t make much sense with his title)?

Though honestly Philip being HM The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh would distinguish his status from that of his younger sons who were also HRH The Prince (name), Duke of X.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

So theoretically there would be nothing stopping the next male and/or first same-sex consort from being made king/queen consort and being crowned? Or Charlotte’s husband from receiving a courtesy title?

In my opinion, that's correct. However, a monarch who is uncomfortable or hesitant about the idea might think or argue that it would be too big a change to make without support from the British public, through the democratically elected government. (I don't agree, especially since there is precedence in the case of male consorts, but a monarch might think that.)

 

[Tatiana Maria]

James and Mary Beatrice's daughter, Louisa Maria, was referred to as the Princess Royal by Jacobites, but the title was never recognised in Britain: she wasn't even born at the time of the Glorious Revolution. She died young. Bonnie Prince Charlie had no legitimate children. His brother became a Cardinal: he called himself Cardinal [Duke of ] York, but again the title was never recognised.

Thank you, but did the reigning line at least recognize the Jacobites as Princes and Princesses or Highnesses? Or were they Lords and Ladies or perhaps even plain Master/Mistress in the eyes of the ruling members of the family?

 

[meeralakshmi]

Until what age is Master used instead of Mr in the UK?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Why would you be allowed to do all of that for various form of legal documentation, but passports (which generally rely on such documentation) are more stringent?

Just a guess, but perhaps because passports interact with the bureaucracies of foreign countries which often have much stricter rules about legal self-identification than the laissez-faire system of the UK and many of its former colonies.

 

[meeralakshmi]

George VI seems to have believed that Philip did not NEED the Prince title as the substantive peerage of The Duke of Edinburgh superseded any Princely title.

To be clear Philip wasn’t made a duke because of his future position as consort but so his children with Elizabeth could be titled before she ascended the throne, the only women in the UK with titles in their own right who could have titled children prior to 2013 were queens regnant and the rare women who held peerages in their own right. Had Elizabeth already been queen when they married he wouldn’t have been given a ducal title as his kids wouldn’t need him to have one to be titled. That was the case for Albert, he was initially elevated from HSH to HRH Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and then Victoria created him HRH The Prince Consort when she was unable to make him king consort. Had Elizabeth already been queen when she married Philip he would have been given some sort of prince consort title. George VI explicitly told the government he didn’t want to make Philip a prince which was likely due to the controversy a foreign prince with a shady family background being made a prince of the UK would have caused at the time. Had he created Philip a prince he wouldn’t have needed to issue LP to make Charles and Anne a prince and princess as they would have inherited princely titles from Philip. Now that there’s absolute primogeniture a female heir will be Princess of Wales in her own right so there’ll be no need to give her husband a ducal title as her children will be Prince/Princess X of Wales.

 

[Alison H]

Until what age is Master used instead of Mr in the UK?

It's not really used much at all any more, mainly because most things just use first name and surname. Letters that would once have been sent to Master J Smith are now just sent to John Smith. Traditionally it was used for boys under about 18, but it'd be rare now to use it for boys over about 12.

I ordered a football magazine subscription for one of my nephews, who was about 10 at the time. You had to put in a title, but "Master" wasn't even an option. So the magazines arrived addressed to "Mr [Name}", which he was very pleased about!

 

[tommy100]

Usually until age 18. At that point Mr is used rather than Master.

Apparently in the BRF even Princes/Princesses didn't get called Your Royal Highness or receive curtseys and bows from staff until they turned 18.

 

[Iluvbertie]

To be clear Philip wasn’t made a duke because of his future position as consort but so his children with Elizabeth could be titled before she ascended the throne, the only women in the UK with titles in their own right who could have titled children prior to 2013 were queens regnant and the rare women who held peerages in their own right. Had Elizabeth already been queen when they married he wouldn’t have been given a ducal title as his kids wouldn’t need him to have one to be titled. That was the case for Albert, he was initially elevated from HSH to HRH Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and then Victoria created him HRH The Prince Consort when she was unable to make him king consort. Had Elizabeth already been queen when she married Philip he would have been given some sort of prince consort title. George VI explicitly told the government he didn’t want to make Philip a prince which was likely due to the controversy a foreign prince with a shady family background being made a prince of the UK would have caused at the time. Had he created Philip a prince he wouldn’t have needed to issue LP to make Charles and Anne a prince and princess as they would have inherited princely titles from Philip. Now that there’s absolute primogeniture a female heir will be Princess of Wales in her own right so there’ll be no need to give her husband a ducal title as her children will be Prince/Princess X of Wales.

Only if, in creating Philip, George VI gave him that right.

Under George V's Letters Patent there is nothing about a person being raised to HRH Prince having the right to pass on the Princely titles to their children. Philip was still not a son of 'a Sovereign of the UK' and only male line grandchildren of a Sovereign could be HRH Prince/Princess.

Your whole argument falls down when it is remembered that George VI eventually issued the Letters Patent to give Charles and Anne the styles of HRH Prince/Princess from birth rather than using their father's titles.

The assumption that the children of a Princess of Wales in her own right is also not a given as again the 1917 rules, which haven't been changed in this regard as still 'male line grandchildren' only.

Of course that situation will probably be changed when the situation calls for it but under the current rules NO child of a Princess, regardless of her place in the line of succession, can pass on HRH Prince/Princess to her children.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

However the government explicitly stated that Philip wasn’t a prince and it took a lot of back-and-forth between Elizabeth and the government to give him a princely title.

Duke of Edinburgh: Title of Prince

Here are the correspondences surrounding the upgrading of Philip’s title.

I didn’t see the government insisting Philip wasn’t a prince or resisting upgrading his title in the correspondence.


The file shows the Lord Chancellor, Viscount Kilmuir, writing in 1954 that Philip might already be legally a prince (though Kilmuir believed he probably was not). Kilmuir pointed out inter alia that Philip was styled “Prince Philip” in the 1948 letters patent on his children’s titles.

”4. A further question that must be considered is whether the Duke is now a Prince or not., and this is a matter on which there is some doubt. […] Some said that he was not a Prince because when he became naturalised he renounced his Greek and Danish Royal styles: others said that in spite of naturalisation he remained a Prince. The confusion was increased by the fact that in various formal documents he has been differently described:

1. In the Letters Patent of 1947 conferring the style of H.R.H. upon him - "Sir Philip Mountbatten, Knight of Our Most Noble Order of the Garter, Lieutenant in Our Navy".
2. In the Letters Patent of the 22nd October, 1948, conferring style and title on the children of the marriage of Princess Elizabeth and the Duke - "His Royal Highness. Prince Philip”.
3. In the Regency Act, 1953, and the Letters Patent of the 20th November, 1953, appointing Counsellors of State during the absence of the Queen and the Duke on their Australian tour — "His Royal Highness Philip, Duke of Edinburgh". This is the description that the Duke himself used when registering the birth of Princess Anne.​

[...]​

The objections were to specific formulations, not to the general idea of making Philip a Prince.

“Prince of the Commonwealth”, suggested by Queen Elizabeth II, was rejected by some of the Commonwealth governments.

“Prince Consort”, suggested by then Prime Minister Winston Churchill, was rejected because Philip did not like it.


Other proposals mentioned in the correspondence:

Philip proposed “Prince of the Realm”.

Prime Minister Winston Churchill proposed “The Prince”.

Queen Elizabeth II proposed “Prince of the United Kingdom” and “Prince Royal”.

Prime Minister Harold Macmillan proposed “Prince of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Her other Realms and Territories”. This proposal later dropped the words “and Her other Realms and Territories” to avoid consultation with other Commonwealth governments.

[...] the substantive peerage of The Duke of Edinburgh superseded any Princely title. In fact, that is the truth of the matter and has been the case for a few hundred years now. Prince/Princess is something you use when the person in question does not have any substantive peerage of their own.

It is a bit bemusing that so much paperwork and time was dedicated to legalizing Philip's then-unofficial title of Prince (which was already used by the general public to refer to him, as the correspondence indicates), only for Buckingham Palace to continue referring to him as simply "HRH The Duke of Edinburgh" for the rest of his life. Only after his death have they begun referring to him as Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.

 

[meeralakshmi]

I didn’t see the government insisting Philip wasn’t a prince

“When George VI conferred the style and title of ‘Royal Highness’ on him in 1947, there was some correspondence in the press about it, and while the authorities principally concerned were agreed that the style of H.R.H. does not necessarily connote the rank and dignity of Prince”

 

[meeralakshmi]

Apparently in the BRF even Princes/Princesses didn't get called Your Royal Highness or receive curtseys and bows from staff until they turned 18.

Is this still the case?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

“When George VI conferred the style and title of ‘Royal Highness’ on him in 1947, there was some correspondence in the press about it, and while the authorities principally concerned were agreed that the style of H.R.H. does not necessarily connote the rank and dignity of Prince”

The Lord Chancellor is saying in that sentence that the majority of officials/experts ("authorities") believed that being an HRH did not automatically make someone a prince.

However, the Lord Chancellor goes on to say that the authorities' opinions are divided on whether Philip was entitled to be described as a Prince:

"When George VI conferred the style and title of "Royal Highness" on him in 1947, there was some correspondence in the press about it, and while the authorities principally concerned were agreed that the style of H.R.H. does not necessarily connote the rank and dignity of Prince, there was a conflict of opinion on the question whether or not it was correct to describe the Duke as a Prince." [...]​

He goes on to comment that although he believes Philip is not a Prince in the UK, he acknowledges that the other side has an argument and it is a controversial issue.

"If therefore the authorities are right that the style of H.R.H. does not necessarily connote the rank and dignity of Prince it would appear probable that it is not legally correct to describe the Duke as a Prince in this country.

However that may be, the question is certainly arguable and the controversy will be revived if the present proposal is proceeded with. On the other hand, the conferment of a new title which included the word "Prince" would solve the problem."​