Questions about British Styles and Titles 3: Aug 2023 -

[tommy100]

Is this still the case?

I would suspect given that William is known to be more relaxed and that his are the only minor Prince/Princesses in the BRF atm that it probably is. I can't see his hands on parenting demanding bows and curtseys from staff to his children. Especially if even his grandmother didn't.

 

[Hallo girl]

Is this still the case?

There was a story that the Late Queen brought in that rule as it had been brought to her attention that a young Andrew was parading back and forward in front of staff/ guards to ensure bows and stand to attention. Not sure how true.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I would suspect given that William is known to be more relaxed and that his are the only minor Prince/Princesses in the BRF atm that it probably is.

There are also Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet of Sussex.

 

[tommy100]

They are not likely to encounter employees of the Royal Household on a daily or regular basis. If / when they do I suspect the same rules would apply but policy wise William and Catherine are the ones who would have more say on how the staff should interact with Prince/ Princess titled children IMO (with Charles and Camilla obvs)

 

[Tatiana Maria]

[...] to give Charlotte’s spouse a courtesy title (they could leave him untitled but I can’t imagine it would be acceptable for the husband of the spare to be untitled while the wife of her younger brother is titled and a working royal).

As illogical and sexist as it is, I think the public would find it acceptable, given that present public opinion accepts Timothy Laurence being a mere "Sir" though he is the son-in-law of a monarch and performs some (joint) official duties, while the Duke of Kent's wife is HRH The Duchess of Kent with the rank of a princess even though she is only the granddaughter-in-law of a monarch and carries out no official duties, in addition to the Duke of Kent being further from the throne than the Princess Royal.

 

[Hallo girl]

As illogical and sexist as it is, I think the public would find it acceptable, given that present public opinion accepts Timothy Laurence being a mere "Sir" though he is the son-in-law of a monarch and performs some (joint) official duties, while the Duke of Kent's wife is HRH The Duchess of Kent with the rank of a princess even though she is only the granddaughter-in-law of a monarch and carries out no official duties, in addition to the Duke of Kent being further from the throne than the Princess Royal.

I have mentioned this on posts before, the Duke of Kent was at one time along with the Duke of Gloucester much closer to the throne. I get irritated about comparisons using distance from the throne, the line of succession is a movable feast, it changes with births and deaths. Should we change people’s titles because they have moved down the line of succession.
Anne didn’t wish a title for her first husband , the father of her children, why would she want one for her second who has received an honour due to his own efforts , service and duty to the monarch.

 

[Sunnystar]

As illogical and sexist as it is, I think the public would find it acceptable, given that present public opinion accepts Timothy Laurence being a mere "Sir" though he is the son-in-law of a monarch and performs some (joint) official duties, while the Duke of Kent's wife is HRH The Duchess of Kent with the rank of a princess even though she is only the granddaughter-in-law of a monarch and carries out no official duties, in addition to the Duke of Kent being further from the throne than the Princess Royal.

Though, to be fair, the Duchess of Kent did carry out royal duties for many years, so I think it's not entirely comparable to Sir Timothy Laurence.

 

[meeralakshmi]

As illogical and sexist as it is, I think the public would find it acceptable, given that present public opinion accepts Timothy Laurence being a mere "Sir" though he is the son-in-law of a monarch and performs some (joint) official duties, while the Duke of Kent's wife is HRH The Duchess of Kent with the rank of a princess even though she is only the granddaughter-in-law of a monarch and carries out no official duties, in addition to the Duke of Kent being further from the throne than the Princess Royal.

Anne is behind Andrew, Edward, and their descendants in the line of succession so her husband not having a title while the wives of her mother's cousins do isn't exactly comparable to Charlotte's spouse being untitled while Louis' spouse has a title (Charlotte is the official spare and Louis is the spare's younger brother, if anything Louis' position is comparable to Anne's).

 

[Hallo girl]

Maybe if married ins just retained their own name or in the case of a woman the Windsor surname it would save a lot of bother .

 

[meeralakshmi]

I have mentioned this on posts before, the Duke of Kent was at one time along with the Duke of Gloucester much closer to the throne. I get irritated about comparisons using distance from the throne, the line of succession is a movable feast, it changes with births and deaths. Should we change people’s titles because they have moved down the line of succession.
Anne didn’t wish a title for her first husband , the father of her children, why would she want one for her second who has received an honour due to his own efforts , service and duty to the monarch.

Was Tim even offered a title though?

 

[meeralakshmi]

Though, to be fair, the Duchess of Kent did carry out royal duties for many years, so I think it's not entirely comparable to Sir Timothy Laurence.

Tim is a working royal in all but name.

 

[Hallo girl]

Was Tim even offered a title though?

Internet stories say he was offered a title which was refused but I cannot confirm that. He did receive recognition from the late Queen for his service to the monarch.

 

[meeralakshmi]

Maybe if married ins just retained their own name or in the case of a woman the Windsor surname it would save a lot of bother .

Other royal families have granted equivalent titles to what wives of princes receive to husbands of princesses, it doesn't have to be a huge hassle for the UK to make similar adaptations.

 

[meeralakshmi]

Internet stories say he was offered a title which was refused but I cannot confirm that. He did receive recognition from the late Queen for his service to the monarch.

What title was it? I would assume an earldom because that was what was offered to Mark.

 

[Hallo girl]

What title was it? I would assume an earldom because that was what was offered to Mark.

I have no idea I am not sure if the article was correct.

 

[Hallo girl]

Other royal families have granted equivalent titles to what wives of princes receive to husbands of princesses, it doesn't have to be a huge hassle for the UK to make similar adaptations.

There seems to be more of a hassle about it on here than there is in real life.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

There seems to be more of a hassle about it on here than there is in real life.

To be fair, authorities in real life (government officials, etc.) have also claimed it would be a hassle to title males and females equally. I think the claim is nonsense, but it has been made.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I of course hope that in the future the UK will follow other monarchies and allow married-in women to have courtesy titles with their own name. Then equivalent courtesy titles can be given to men and same-sex wives.

I may be the only person to feel this way, but personally I would be delighted to see Edo for example become Prince Beatrice of York. I thought it was nice when, after Japan’s Imperial Household Agency received complaints about referring to wives as the Japanese equivalent of “Mrs. John Smith”, it began using the equivalent of “Mr. Jane Doe” for husbands. (See the thread The Imperial Household.) Unfortunately, that didn’t last.

Admittedly, the "Princess or Prince (spouse’s name)" formula would not work for same-gender married couples or non-binary people and would be confusing if the royal spouse had a gender-neutral name, so it does make sense to drop it.

 

[meeralakshmi]

There seems to be more of a hassle about it on here than there is in real life.

There have been multiple efforts to allow women to inherit peerages and male and/or same-sex spouses of peers to use courtesy titles, none of which have yet been successful. Many people have also asked why Camilla is queen but Philip wasn't king.

 

[meeralakshmi]

Admittedly, the "Princess or Prince (spouse’s name)" formula would not work for same-gender married couples or non-binary people and would be confusing if the royal spouse had a gender-neutral name, so it does make sense to drop it.

Yes that's why Lord Ivar Mountbatten's husband currently can't receive a courtesy title.

 

[Somebody]

There have been multiple efforts to allow women to inherit peerages and male and/or same-sex spouses of peers to use courtesy titles, none of which have yet been successful. Many people have also asked why Camilla is queen but Philip wasn't king.

I honestly have only seen a few people question that. Can you share the references to the many people who raised this issue?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Yes that's why Lord Ivar Mountbatten's husband currently can't receive a courtesy title.

The rule that only men may share their British titles and status with (only) wives is even older than the rule of British married women using their husbands' forenames (titled or untitled). As late as the 18th century, married women in the UK were generally known by their own forenames, but already at that point husbands could not take on their wives' titles.

 

[Hallo girl]

There have been multiple efforts to allow women to inherit peerages and male and/or same-sex spouses of peers to use courtesy titles, none of which have yet been successful. Many people have also asked why Camilla is queen but Philip wasn't king.

If they understood what regnant meant , and the hierarchy of royalty they would not question it. It has been repeated umpteen times on the media, on this forum under various threads.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I get irritated about comparisons using distance from the throne, the line of succession is a movable feast, it changes with births and deaths.

Elizabeth II and now Charles III assigned Anne a lower spot in the order of precedence than Andrew and Edward, even though they are her younger siblings, and their justification (as explained in Parliament during the debate on the Counsellors of State amendment) is that she is further down in the line of succession to the throne (because of her sex).

If they understood what regnant meant , and the hierarchy of royalty they would not question it. It has been repeated umpteen times on the media, on this forum under various threads.

Neither Philip nor Camilla were/are "regnant" (and I am sure that has been explained "umpteen times" in the media and forums as well ), so it is unrelated to that.

 

[Hallo girl]

Elizabeth II and now Charles III assigned Anne a lower spot in the order of precedence than Andrew and Edward, even though they are her younger siblings, and their justification (as explained in Parliament during the debate on the Counsellors of State amendment) is that she is further down in the line of succession to the throne (because of her sex).



Neither Philip nor Camilla were/are "regnant" (and I am sure that has been explained "umpteen times" in the media and forums as well ), so it is unrelated to that.

I never said Philip and Camilla were / are regnant I understand what it means, and why Philip was never King.
As for precedence , I never raised that but I also understand it.

 

[meeralakshmi]

I honestly have only seen a few people question that. Can you share the references to the many people who raised this issue?

If you Google the question you’ll see that it’s a commonly asked one.

 

[meeralakshmi]

The rule that only men may share their British titles and status with (only) wives is even older than the rule of British married women using their husbands' forenames (titled or untitled). As late as the 18th century, married women in the UK were generally known by their own forenames, but already at that point husbands could not take on their wives' titles.

Correct but for Ivar’s husband to hold a courtesy title they would need to adapt not one but two policies.

 

[meeralakshmi]

If they understood what regnant meant , and the hierarchy of royalty they would not question it. It has been repeated umpteen times on the media, on this forum under various threads.

King is not a higher rank than queen, that is a sexist misconception. The title of king consort has been used three times in the UK (once in England for the husband of Mary I and twice in Scotland for the first two husbands of Mary, Queen of Scots). George, Albert, and Philip did not receive the title of king because the government didn’t want foreign princes as kings.

 

[meeralakshmi]

Neither Philip nor Camilla were/are "regnant"

I think they meant the difference between Elizabeth and Camilla’s positions. However the concept of king consort vs. king regnant has been a thing for a while.

 

[Hallo girl]

I think they meant the difference between Elizabeth and Camilla’s positions. However the concept of king consort vs. king regnant has been a thing for a while.

Of course Elizabeth and Camilla were different, Elizabeth was regnant... The husband of Mary 1 was a King in his own right so they couldn't demote him. As for Scotland , it was very complex and cannot be explained in a post.