Questions about British Styles and Titles 3: Aug 2023 -

[royal-blue]

This example is obviously nonsensical but it demonstrates the question I want to ask:

If Prince Andrew was to marry Princess Alexandra, who she become Princess Andrew?

If a British Prince was to marry someone who was already a British Princess, would she take his name or keep their own?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

This example is obviously nonsensical but it demonstrates the question I want to ask:

If Prince Andrew was to marry Princess Alexandra, who she become Princess Andrew?

If a British Prince was to marry someone who was already a British Princess, would she take his name or keep their own?

She would take his name, just as HH The Duchess of Fife became HRH Princess Arthur of Connaught when she married HRH Prince Arthur of Connaught.

In the British system of titles, a woman takes on her husband’s title if his rank is higher than the rank she holds in her own right or by right of her father or mother.

They are both HRH Prince/ss, but as the child of a late monarch, Andrew outranks Alexandra, who is “only” the grandchild of a late monarch.

If the situation were reversed and the Princess Royal married Prince Michael of Kent, she would continue to be called by her own title.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

This article is now on The Daily Beast website, repeating the claims...

I will take them with a pinch of salt for now. Time will eventually tell if the claims are correct or not - let's hope we don't find out for sure for many years to come.

The claim from the Tom Sykes article:

“As king, William will strip Prince Andrew and all other non-working royals of their honorific “HRHs” and princely titles, friends and allies of the prince told the Daily Beast.

[…] The dramatic change will be effected by an executive royal order known as “letters patent,” to be ratified by Parliament in the early weeks of the reign of King William V. It will remove princely titles from Beatrice, Eugenie, Harry, Archie, and Lilibet. The children of Prince Edward and Princess Anne have never used princely titles.

Meghan and Harry will also see their dukedoms and HRHs formally revoked by the new king, the source said. Meghan continues to use her HRH, despite being ordered not to do so by the late Queen Elizabeth II.

A source said William’s own children may have their titles informally “parked” until they become adults and can decide for themselves if they want to be full-time working royals or lead lives as private citizens. The source said they are never addressed as “prince” or “princess” by their parents, teachers, staff, or family.”

Prince William Plots Bonfire of Royal Titles When He Becomes King

King William V will strip family members of honorific titles, while sordid details about Andrew and Fergie’s dealings with billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein continue to emerge.

www.thedailybeast.com

I also take this with a pinch of salt, but not because I assume Tom Sykes is making the whole thing up. As far as I know, there is no record of Mr. Sykes doing anything so nefarious. (Even though he failed to check what letters patent are – they are not ratified by Parliament.)

Rather, I take it with a pinch of salt because I think the Prince of Wales is intelligent enough to know that if he wants a briefing to be widely circulated and believed, he needs to have his spokesperson-friends share it with royal reporters across the mainstream British news media.

The choice to share this with only one royal reporter, one who is known to be gossipy and sensationalistic and writes for an American website, causes me to suspect it wasn’t intended to be taken completely seriously by the general British public.

That does not mean the changes couldn’t happen eventually, but I don’t think they are meant to be set in stone at this time.

Therefore, my best guess is that the purpose of this chat with Tom Sykes was either to appeal to the more outraged bloc of royal watchers, assuring them that Prince William sees eye to eye with them more than King Charles does, or else to send a warning to the non-working princes and princesses to watch their step and not cross Prince William’s lines.


Regarding the last paragraph of that quote, I think it is a good choice for the Wales children not to be addressed as prince and princess at school, etc.

 

[meeralakshmi]

If the situation were reversed and the Princess Royal married Prince Michael of Kent, she would continue to be called by her own title.

Would she not be HRH The Princess Royal, Princess Michael of Kent? I thought wives of titled men receive their husbands’ titles no matter what.

She would take his name, just as HH The Duchess of Fife became HRH Princess Arthur of Connaught when she married HRH Prince Arthur of Connaught.

In the British system of titles, a woman takes on her husband’s title if his rank is higher than the rank she holds in her own right or by right of her father or mother.

They are both HRH Prince/ss, but as the child of a late monarch, Andrew outranks Alexandra, who is “only” the grandchild of a late monarch.

If the situation were reversed and the Princess Royal married Prince Michael of Kent, she would continue to be called by her own title.

Btw Andrew marrying Alexandra or Anne marrying Michael is equivalent to Alexandra marrying Arthur since all three are examples of first cousins once removed.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Would she not be HRH The Princess Royal, Princess Michael of Kent? I thought wives of titled men receive their husbands’ titles no matter what.

I think that would probably be her full title (equivalent to Princess Beatrice, Mrs. Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi), but even under Elizabeth II, the Princesses Royal do not suffix other titles in their daily style (the Princess Royal dropped "Mrs. Mark Phillips" after being creating Princess Royal), so on a day-to-day basis she would continue to be known as HRH The Princess Royal.

 

[LauraS3514]

Regarding the last paragraph of that quote, I think it is a good choice for the Wales children not to be addressed as prince and princess at school, etc.

This is already the case, and was for William, Harry, Beatrice, and Eugenie - they were known as "William Wales" or "Eugenie York" at school. None of the HRH royal children were addressed as such until their 18th birthdays IIRC.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

This article is now on The Daily Beast website, repeating the claims...

I will take them with a pinch of salt for now. Time will eventually tell if the claims are correct or not - let's hope we don't find out for sure for many years to come.

The claim from the Tom Sykes article:

“As king, William will strip Prince Andrew and all other non-working royals of their honorific “HRHs” and princely titles, friends and allies of the prince told the Daily Beast.

[…] The dramatic change will be effected by an executive royal order known as “letters patent,” to be ratified by Parliament in the early weeks of the reign of King William V. It will remove princely titles from Beatrice, Eugenie, Harry, Archie, and Lilibet. The children of Prince Edward and Princess Anne have never used princely titles.

Meghan and Harry will also see their dukedoms and HRHs formally revoked by the new king, the source said. Meghan continues to use her HRH, despite being ordered not to do so by the late Queen Elizabeth II.

A source said William’s own children may have their titles informally “parked” until they become adults and can decide for themselves if they want to be full-time working royals or lead lives as private citizens. The source said they are never addressed as “prince” or “princess” by their parents, teachers, staff, or family.”

Prince William Plots Bonfire of Royal Titles When He Becomes King

King William V will strip family members of honorific titles, while sordid details about Andrew and Fergie’s dealings with billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein continue to emerge.

www.thedailybeast.com

I also take this with a pinch of salt, but not because I assume Tom Sykes is making the whole thing up. As far as I know, there is no record of Mr. Sykes doing anything so nefarious. (Even though he failed to check what letters patent are – they are not ratified by Parliament.)

Rather, I take it with a pinch of salt because I think the Prince of Wales is intelligent enough to know that if he wants a briefing to be widely circulated and believed, he needs to have his spokesperson-friends share it with royal reporters across the mainstream British news media.

The choice to share this with only one royal reporter, one who is known to be gossipy and sensationalistic and writes for an American website, causes me to suspect it wasn’t intended to be taken completely seriously by the general British public.

That does not mean the changes couldn’t happen eventually, but I don’t think they are meant to be set in stone at this time.

Therefore, my best guess is that the purpose of this chat with Tom Sykes was either to appeal to the more outraged bloc of royal watchers, assuring them that Prince William sees eye to eye with them more than King Charles does, or else to send a warning to the non-working princes and princesses to watch their step and not cross Prince William’s lines.

For whatever it’s worth, Tom Sykes himself agrees with us and our pinch of salt.

“'As King, William would immediately strip Prince Andrew of his title,' Mr Sykes said.

'But might also consider removing the titles from a number of others.

Mr Sykes, who is also European Editor-at-Large of the Daily Beast added: 'He is looking at the whole family and wondering if it should be streamlined and if so how. But currently there are no decisions beyond one: Andrew is almost certainly going.

'The question of potentially trimming others is still in its early stages of discussion though.'​

William 'could strip Andrew of all titles as king', sources claim

The Prince of Wales (pictured, with Prince Andrew) is understood to be unhappy with the compromise brokered by his father King Charles last week.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Mbruno]

For whatever it’s worth, Tom Sykes himself agrees with us and our pinch of salt.

“'As King, William would immediately strip Prince Andrew of his title,' Mr Sykes said.​

​

'But might also consider removing the titles from a number of others.​

​

Mr Sykes, who is also European Editor-at-Large of the Daily Beast added: 'He is looking at the whole family and wondering if it should be streamlined and if so how. But currently there are no decisions beyond one: Andrew is almost certainly going.​

​

'The question of potentially trimming others is still in its early stages of discussion though.'​

William 'could strip Andrew of all titles as king', sources claim

The Prince of Wales (pictured, with Prince Andrew) is understood to be unhappy with the compromise brokered by his father King Charles last week.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Removing Andew's and Harry's princely titles would be problematic.

If William wanted to have new rules of general application, he could follow other European monarchies and restrict princely titles to children of a monarch, the heir to the Crown (if not already included in the former category), and children of the heir. If applied to people born before the new Letters Patent are issued, that would strip Beatrice, Eugenie, Archie, and Lilibet (and the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent, Prince Michael, and Princess Alexandra) of their titles, but would not affect Harry or Andrew. To remove Harry's and Andrew's titles by a rule of general application, William would probably have to go the Norwegian way, i.e. , HRH only for the heir and the eldest child of heir, which would also affect Edward and Anne, or Charlotte and Louis.

Stripping Andrew or Harry of their princely titles by bespoke LPs that apply exclusively to them, rather than by rules of general application, would look personal. William probably could get away with it without much controversy in Andrew's case, but doing it for Harry would be stirring the hornet's nest. In fact, even taking away Archie's and Lilibet's princely titles (which I believe will happen in William's reign) will be already controversial enough.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Princess Eugenie continued to use “Princess Eugenie of York” for the first couple of years after marrying Jack Brooksbank, even though Buckingham Palace referred to her as “Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank.”

See here for examples and sources.

Jack Brooksbank: Is there a Title in his future?

Isn’t this the equivalent of a woman keeping her maiden name effectively? I really don’t see a title for Jack, it would have come on their wedding day.

www.theroyalforums.com

I thought Princess Beatrice never did the same, but it seems I was wrong. Recently, she was photographed at an investment summit in Riyadh wearing a name tag reading “H.R.H. Princess Beatrice of York”.

Princess Beatrice's name tag error amid Andrew drama

Princess Beatrice made a surprise appearance in Saudi Arabia this week for a conference. However, eagle-eyed commentators noticed that the royal's name tag was carrying an error

www.hellomagazine.com

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/ace/standard/976/cpsprodpb/11dd/live/c165aed0-b679-11f0-b027-61021c9d4006.jpg.webp

One hopes the day will come when a woman using her birth name after marriage will no longer be an “error”, as the Hello! headline describes it.

 

[Lord-of-the-Manor]

I think royal styles and titles being described in the media as a birthright, is part of the problem. It implies that change cannot happen. How a king or queen chooses to style their family members is up to them really. I think there should be a broad template on who is a royal highness and prince or princess, but regulating this to specific individuals has happened in the past and can happen in the future.

 

[GondorHasNoPants]

I quite agree, @Lord-of-the-Manor. I'm sure some people raised concerns about birthright back in 1917, when George V changed the family name to Windsor, and removed the style of HH from male-line great-grandsons.

Birthright is defined as 'a right, privilege or possession someone is entitled to by birth'. You cannot divorce a royal family from this concept - it is the reason a monarchy exists - but I personally feel it is fine to occasionally review what those rights, privileges and possessions are, and to attach some balancing expectations around behaviour, duties and responsibilities.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I think royal styles and titles being described in the media as a birthright, is part of the problem. It implies that change cannot happen. How a king or queen chooses to style their family members is up to them really. I think there should be a broad template on who is a royal highness and prince or princess, but regulating this to specific individuals has happened in the past and can happen in the future.

To be fair to the news media, the Palace itself was pushing the "birthright" argument as late as two weeks ago.

Crossposted from a comment I made on October 23rd:

There are some questionable but interesting claims about titles that the Palace has been apparently been briefing to the royal reporters. (The claims have appeared in similar words in many different major news outlets, though for brevity, I will only quote one or two reports per claim.)


First, the palace differentiates Andrew’s princely title from his peerage titles by emphasizing that he was born with his prince title but his dukedom was conferred on him later in life.

Telegraph: “Palace aides stressed that he remains the son of Elizabeth II and that therefore the title of Prince will still be used, in accordance with Letters Patent issued in 1917 by George V which were updated by the late Queen in 2012.”

Guardian: “[H]is only remaining title will be that of prince, which cannot be removed as he was born the son of a queen.”

Express: “He will retain his princely title, as it is his birthright as the son of a former monarch, Queen Elizabeth II.”​

Interestingly, it seems that the palace also used the “he was born a prince so he will stay a prince” line of argument in 2020, when the Sussexes agreed to stop using their HRHs but not to stop using Harry’s princely title.

BBC: “Prince Harry will remain a prince, having been born one.”
​

So it seems the palace, under both Elizabeth II and Charles III, implies a Prince title conferred at birth is more “untouchable” than a Duke title conferred in adulthood. But they have it backwards. A prince title enjoys less legal protection than a peerage title, regardless of whether they received at or after birth.

For centuries, the legal consensus has been that a monarch may not remove peerages without the consent of Parliament. Yet whenever princely titles were removed in the past, including from born princes or princesses, Parliament never became involved, unless of course peerage titles were being removed at the same time (i.e., the Titles Deprivation Act removals).

My question is: Why has the Palace been attempting since 2020 to convince the media and public that removing royal titles assigned at birth is a no-go?​

 

[Hallo girl]

I will respond to the general discussion about kings consort here: Title & Role of a Consort. Not because there is anything wrong with discussing it in this thread, but because the same arguments tend to arise in discussions about kings consort regardless of the specific country involved.



He was King of Scotland (consort). As explained by this website which compiles historical papers documenting titles of monarchs:

"Since the 13th century, the Kings of France when married to women, who were territorial rulers of their own rights, did not use their titles in the French documents (e.g., Philip IV, Philip V, Charles VIII, Louis XII, Francis I, Francis II). However, in documents issued for their wives' territories the Kings of France could use their titles. For example, Philip IV was named King of Navarra, Louis XII, Francis I were named Dukes of Brittany, Francis II was named King of Scotland."​

France. Titles of European hereditary rulers

He was referred to in Scottish documents as King of Scotland when he was still the Dolphin of Viennois (i.e. crown prince of France):

“Franciscus et Maria, Dei gratia Rex et Regina Scotorum ac Delphinus et Delphina Viennen.”​

​

“Frances and Marie be the Grace of God King and Queen of Scottis Daulphin and Daulphines of Viennoys”​

Scotland. Titles of European hereditary rulers

It was possibly documented as such, but he would never have been accepted in Scotland as King, it took the noblemen of Scotland to accept Catholic Mary as Queen, with all that then followed. He would never have reigned in Scotland.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I don't think it was proposed that Francis would reign, but he was titled King as Mary's consort, as was the norm in Europe at the time.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Does anyone know why Prince Albert of Schleswig-Holstein (a grandson of Queen Victoria who was born and raised as a member of the British royal family, but relocated to Germany as an adult and fought in the Prussian army) was not stripped of his British "His Highness" title under the Titles Deprivation Act?

Was it because he was neither the holder nor the heir of any British dukedom, unlike the British-German princes who did have their British titles stripped after World War One?

 

[hereditarytitles]

The only information (and I don't know how valid it is) I found in google generated by AI:

Prince Albrecht of Schleswig-Holstein retained his title because the abolition of titles did not apply to him, as he held no ruling position in the German Empire. The abolition of titles after the First World War primarily affected the ruling princes of the German states, not the members of the non-reigning House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Augustenburg, who after 1866 possessed only a hereditary rank of nobility and no longer had any political influence.

Not a ruling member: After the end of the German monarchy, the abolition of titles of nobility was limited to the ruling princes of the German Empire. Prince Albrecht was not a ruling prince, as his house had lost its sovereignty in 1866 after the Austro-Prussian War.

Remaining titles of nobility: Since the House of Augustenburg no longer ruled after Prussia's takeover, its members remained non-reigning nobles. Following the abdication of Kaiser Wilhelm II, the office of Imperial Head of State ceased to exist, and with it, the possibility of officially revoking titles of nobility.

Legal basis: The legal basis for abolishing titles of nobility was limited to the abolition of the monarchy and the dissolution of the monarchy in the German Empire. There was no legal basis for revoking the title of Prince or Duke from non-reigning nobles.

Google Search

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The AI got it wrong, I'm afraid.

The Titles Deprivation Act covered "any persons enjoying any dignity or title as a peer or British prince who have, during the present war, borne arms against His Majesty or His Allies, or who have adhered to His Majesty's enemies."

There was no requirement that they belong to a ruling German family.

Titles Deprivation Act (1917/1919)

In fact, by the time the removals were carried out in 1919, there were no ruling German families left, as the German monarchies were all deposed in 1918.

 

[Gawin]

Does anyone know why Prince Albert of Schleswig-Holstein (a grandson of Queen Victoria who was born and raised as a member of the British royal family, but relocated to Germany as an adult and fought in the Prussian army) was not stripped of his British "His Highness" title under the Titles Deprivation Act?

Was it because he was neither the holder nor the heir of any British dukedom, unlike the British-German princes who did have their British titles stripped after World War One?

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

“The possibility of proceeding against Albert of Schleswig-Holstein appears to have been dropped at about this time, although nothing suggesting a firm decision appears in the surviving papers, presumably because he was not a “British prince”, despite his title of “Highness”, and held no British peerage” (pp. 199-200, note 84).

Lyon also notes that King George V was opposed to the entire proceedings, but was especially loathe to take action against Prince Albert, apparently out of sympathy for his parents Prince and Princess Christian.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

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

“The possibility of proceeding against Albert of Schleswig-Holstein appears to have been dropped at about this time, although nothing suggesting a firm decision appears in the surviving papers, presumably because he was not a “British prince”, despite his title of “Highness”, and held no British peerage” (pp. 199-200, note 84).

Lyon also notes that King George V was opposed to the entire proceedings, but was especially loathe to take action against Prince Albert, apparently out of sympathy for his parents Prince and Princess Christian.

Thank you for the very informative answer. I suppose the fact that no record exists of why proceedings were not taken against him suggests he was not considered very important. It is especially interesting to know that King George V was personally opposed to the Titles Deprivation Act removals - which raises a question mark over how much the 1917 demotion of HH and HSH British royals was the will of the King and how much was the will of the Government.

 

[Noble Consort Ming]

Prince Albert's titles were from his father. They were not British titles so there was nothing the British government could take away. Plenty of the family's relatives with German titles were on the opposite side of the war but they can't take away someone's foreign titles.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Prince Albert's titles were from his father. They were not British titles so there was nothing the British government could take away. Plenty of the family's relatives with German titles were on the opposite side of the war but they can't take away someone's foreign titles.

The Schleswig-Holstein siblings' title of "Highness" was a British title from Queen Victoria, as was their father's title of "Royal Highness".

"[...] in contemplation of the marriage of Our dear Daughter the Princess Helena Augusta Victoria with the Prince Christian of Schleswig Holstein We were pleased to declare that he should henceforth be styled "His Royal Highness". And Whereas he the said Prince having since become a naturalized subject of Our said United Kingdom We are desirous of defining and fixing the Style by which the Issue of the said Marriage shall be designated such Issue being British born Subjects and Descendants of Our Royal House Now We are hereby pleased to declare that the Sons and Daughters born of the said Marriage of the said Prince and Princess shall at all times hold and enjoy the Style Title and Attribute of "Highness" prefixed to their respective Christian names and any Titles of Honor which may belong to them."​

Royal Styles and Titles of Great Britain: Documents

 

[Gawin]

Thank you for the very informative answer. I suppose the fact that no record exists of why proceedings were not taken against him suggests he was not considered very important. It is especially interesting to know that King George V was personally opposed to the Titles Deprivation Act removals - which raises a question mark over how much the 1917 demotion of HH and HSH British royals was the will of the King and how much was the will of the Government.

It was definitely the will of the government rather than the King. According to Lyon, "material in the Royal Archives indicates the King’s deep unhappiness about the issue, stemming from a sense of dishonour, and also an appreciation, not shared by politicians and the Press, that the position of royal persons was uniquely complex due to the frequency of dynastic
inter-marriage." But while letting it be known that he found the whole thing "petty and undignified," King George V agreed to follow the advice of his Prime Minister. The Asquith government even delayed taking up the matter due to the King's unhappiness.

 

[JR76]

The AI got it wrong, I'm afraid.

The Titles Deprivation Act covered "any persons enjoying any dignity or title as a peer or British prince who have, during the present war, borne arms against His Majesty or His Allies, or who have adhered to His Majesty's enemies."

The Duke never physically bore arms against the British. Instead he requested and was granted an exemption from active duty and spent the war behind a desk.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The Duke never physically bore arms against the British. Instead he requested and was granted an exemption from active duty and spent the war behind a desk.

Which Duke was that? (If Albert of Schleswig-Holstein, he did not assume the (by then only courtesy) title of Duke until he became the senior male of the Schleswig-Holstein family in 1921.) And out of curiosity, why was he exempted?

I think desk work for the German army would still have been properly under the scope of the “adhered to His Majesty's enemies” clause of the UK’s Titles Deprivation Act, though, wouldn’t it?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

It was definitely the will of the government rather than the King. According to Lyon, "material in the Royal Archives indicates the King’s deep unhappiness about the issue, stemming from a sense of dishonour, and also an appreciation, not shared by politicians and the Press, that the position of royal persons was uniquely complex due to the frequency of dynastic inter-marriage." But while letting it be known that he found the whole thing "petty and undignified," King George V agreed to follow the advice of his Prime Minister. The Asquith government even delayed taking up the matter due to the King's unhappiness.

Thanks! For the avoidance of misunderstanding (as my comment may have been unclear), the second portion of my comment was wondering whether the King or the Government initiated a different 1917 reform, namely the limitation of Prince and Princess titles in the British Royal Family to children and male-line grandchildren of monarchs. Was the Lyon quote referring to that, or to the Titles Deprivation Act, or both?

The palace briefings in 1917 (I can post links if anyone is interested) presented the 1917 Letters Patent downsizing to children and male-line grandchildren as King George V’s project, but it seems strange if a person unhappy about titles being stripped from distant German cousins would be so enthusiastic about stripping them from his own close relatives.

 

[Gawin]

Thanks! For the avoidance of misunderstanding (as my comment may have been unclear), the second portion of my comment was wondering whether the King or the Government initiated a different 1917 reform, namely the limitation of Prince and Princess titles in the British Royal Family to children and male-line grandchildren of monarchs. Was the Lyon quote referring to that, or to the Titles Deprivation Act, or both?

The palace briefings in 1917 (I can post links if anyone is interested) presented the 1917 Letters Patent downsizing to children and male-line grandchildren as King George V’s project, but it seems strange if a person unhappy about titles being stripped from distant German cousins would be so enthusiastic about stripping them from his own close relatives.

I

Thanks! For the avoidance of misunderstanding (as my comment may have been unclear), the second portion of my comment was wondering whether the King or the Government initiated a different 1917 reform, namely the limitation of Prince and Princess titles in the British Royal Family to children and male-line grandchildren of monarchs. Was the Lyon quote referring to that, or to the Titles Deprivation Act, or both?

I'm sorry, I misread your comment. Lyon only referred to the Titles Deprivation Act not George V's Letters Patent.

 

[Westfield Bakery]

The 1917 letters patent should be abolished.

Female line grandchildren should have the title of Princess/Prince, especially if there is a female heiress. There will not always be a male heir like Charles, William, George.

Margaret and Anne's children should have been HRHs.

 

[Somebody]

You may recall that princess (later queen) Elizabeth's children were royal highnesses So, if there is a female heiress, history shows that they will make sure her children are appropriately titled.

 

[Westfield Bakery]

You may recall that princess (later queen) Elizabeth's children were royal highnesses So, if there is a female heiress, history shows that they will make sure her children are appropriately titled.

True.

However, Margaret's children and Anne's children should have gotten titles too. All princes and blood princesses children should, if the monarchy wants to remain relevant.

Margaret's children would have been Prince David and Princess Sarah of Snowdon.

 

[Noble Consort Ming]

The Schleswig-Holstein siblings' title of "Highness" was a British title from Queen Victoria, as was their father's title of "Royal Highness".

"[...] in contemplation of the marriage of Our dear Daughter the Princess Helena Augusta Victoria with the Prince Christian of Schleswig Holstein We were pleased to declare that he should henceforth be styled "His Royal Highness". And Whereas he the said Prince having since become a naturalized subject of Our said United Kingdom We are desirous of defining and fixing the Style by which the Issue of the said Marriage shall be designated such Issue being British born Subjects and Descendants of Our Royal House Now We are hereby pleased to declare that the Sons and Daughters born of the said Marriage of the said Prince and Princess shall at all times hold and enjoy the Style Title and Attribute of "Highness" prefixed to their respective Christian names and any Titles of Honor which may belong to them."​

Royal Styles and Titles of Great Britain: Documents

What would they have been otherwise? Serene Highnesses(whether in actuality or pretense)? Either way I don't see how they could have been deprived of their Schleswig-Holstein titles even if the HH and HRH could have been taken away.