Questions about British Styles and Titles 3: Aug 2023 -

[GondorHasNoPants]

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

Not gonna lie - Prince David of Snowdon is kind of an epic name. Like something out of a novel set in Dark Ages Wales

 

[Westfield Bakery]

Not gonna lie - Prince David of Snowdon is kind of an epic name. Like something out of a novel set in Dark Ages Wales

Margaret definitely would have wanted her children to have HRH titles. She looked down on her mother and grandmother for not being blood royals like her.

George VI should have amended the 1917 patent for all blood princesses.

 

[TLLK]

Margaret definitely would have wanted her children to have HRH titles. She looked down on her mother and grandmother for not being blood royals like her.

George VI should have amended the 1917 patent for all blood princesses.

Just to clarify, are you suggesting that the children of all of the United Kingdom's princesses should have been royal princes or princesses? If that is the case, then the children of Princess Alexandra of Kent, the Princess Royal (Anne), Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie would all be royals.
I was under the impression that the Letters Patent of 1917 not only sought to establish who would have those titles but to also limit the number of royal titleholders.

HRH and Prince/Princess

With this ruling of 1917, George V restricted the usage of the style HRH and the title of Prince or Princess tothe children of the monarch, the children of the sons of the monarch the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales

debretts.com

 

[Tatiana Maria]

What would they have been otherwise? Serene Highnesses(whether in actuality or pretense)?

Their father was a Serene Highness until Queen Victoria raised him to Royal Highness.

Royal Styles and Titles of Great Britain: Documents

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.

I agree, hence only inquired about Albert’s British HH.

Now that you mention it, though, King George V in 1917 renounced all German titles, honors, etc., on behalf of all descendants of Queen Victoria who were British subjects. That included the Schleswig-Holstein siblings (Albert’s two sisters remained in Britain).

“And do hereby further declare and announce that We for Ourselves and for and on behalf of Our descendants and all other the descendants of Our said Grandmother Queen Victoria who are subjects of these Realms, relinquish and enjoin the discontinuance of the use of the Degrees, Styles, Dignities, Titles and Honours of Dukes and Duchesses of Saxony and Princes and Princesses of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, and all other German Degrees, Styles, Dignities. Titles, Honours and Appellations to Us or to them heretofore belonging or appertaining.”

Royal Styles and Titles of Great Britain: Documents

The preparatory correspondence indicates the powers that be were aware the renunciation would probably have no effect under German law, but it was considered sufficient for British purposes.

 

[Westfield Bakery]

Just to clarify, are you suggesting that the children of all of the United Kingdom's princesses should have been royal princes or princesses? If that is the case, then the children of Princess Alexandra of Kent, the Princess Royal (Anne), Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie would all be royals.
I was under the impression that the Letters Patent of 1917 not only sought to establish who would have those titles but to also limit the number of royal titleholders.

HRH and Prince/Princess

With this ruling of 1917, George V restricted the usage of the style HRH and the title of Prince or Princess tothe children of the monarch, the children of the sons of the monarch the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales

debretts.com

Yes.

It should be changed. A princess should give birth to another princess (daughter).

 

[Curryong]

And when should this end would you suggest? In perpetuity, so you could have dozens of Princesses for generation after generation?

 

[GondorHasNoPants]

I personally think we should level the playing field between the sons of sovereigns and the daughters of sovereigns, but not by granting titles and styles to the children of daughters - by revoking them from the children of sons. With an exception for the children of the heir or heiress apparent, of course. Keep everything only in the senior, inheriting line.

 

[Hallo girl]

And when should this end would you suggest? In perpetuity, so you could have dozens of Princesses for generation after generation?

I agree, part of the problems that are being encountered now are because we have people with titles who are for work purposes private citizens. That is where it becomes messy.
Not always their fault but causes confusion, then accusations of using titles.

It is a change for going forward. Interesting times.

 

[Westfield Bakery]

And when should this end would you suggest? In perpetuity, so you could have dozens of Princesses for generation after generation?

It ends at the great-granddaughter of a monarch.

Charlotte's kids should be princesses.

Margaret's kids should have been HRHs. She definitely would have wanted it. I am sure she fumed at her father for that 1948 patent. Only Elizabeth's children had the right, not Margaret.

 

[Hallo girl]

It ends at the great-granddaughter of a monarch.

Charlotte's kids should be princesses.

Margaret's kids should have been HRHs. She definitely would have wanted it. I am sure she fumed at her father for that 1948 patent. Only Elizabeth's children had the right, not Margaret.

I am not sure if they would agree with you, David appears to have successful business interests, with Sarah , an artist, leading a fairly private life intermingled with charitable work. If they had royal titles there would have been accusations of using titles to make their way. Being who they were related to was in no doubt a help but titles could have been a distraction.

 

[Somebody]

It ends at the great-granddaughter of a monarch.

Charlotte's kids should be princesses.

Margaret's kids should have been HRHs. She definitely would have wanted it. I am sure she fumed at her father for that 1948 patent. Only Elizabeth's children had the right, not Margaret.

Currently, for male-line descendants it ends at the grandchildren of a monarch (with the only exception for children of a future monarch, like William's children). In the past great-grandchildren have been highnesses and prince(sse)s but not royal highnesses; and this was limited to only grandchildren over a century ago (LP of 1917). Why do you propose to extend it to another generation, i.e., great-grandchildren?

 

[TLLK]

I personally think we should level the playing field between the sons of sovereigns and the daughters of sovereigns, but not by granting titles and styles to the children of daughters - by revoking them from the children of sons. With an exception for the children of the heir or heiress apparent, of course. Keep everything only in the senior, inheriting line.

This is an excellent solution IMO.
The could simply be (first name and Mountbatten-Windsor) for those direct descendants of the late QEII and Prince Phillip.

 

[Somebody]

This is an excellent solution IMO.
The could simply be (first name and Mountbatten-Windsor) for those direct descendants of the late QEII and Prince Phillip.

Children of the most senior peers are lords and ladies, I would at least extent that style to members of the royal family.

 

[TLLK]

I agree, part of the problems that are being encountered now are because we have people with titles who are for work purposes private citizens. That is where it becomes messy.
Not always their fault but causes confusion, then accusations of using titles.

It is a change for going forward. Interesting times.

I agree. There were some accusations made in 2012 that Zara Tindall only was selected for the Olympic team because she was the monarch's granddaughter instead of her own accomplishments.

 

[TLLK]

Children of the most senior peers are lords and ladies, I would at least extent that style to members of the royal family.

So that would be Lord/Lady Mountbatten-Windsor (QEII's descendants) or in some cases Lord/Lady Windsor.

 

[Noble Consort Ming]

Children of the most senior peers are lords and ladies, I would at least extent that style to members of the royal family.

But those are courtesy titles, not substantive titles. They are not really lords and ladies, they are called so out of courtesy and tradition. Just as James, Earl of Wessex(formerly called Viscount Severn) is not actually Earl of Wessex.

 

[Somebody]

Exactly, I would like that courtesy extended to grandchildren of a monarch instead of them being known as plain master (mr.)/miss (mrs.) as was TLLK's original proposal.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Why is it that the British system of royal titles bears a closer resemblance to the old French system of royal titles than the German system, even though the current direct line of British royals began with the German-born George I and George II and married mostly Germans throughout the 18th and 19th centuries?

 

[Lord-of-the-Manor]

Wasn't french the language at court as well? I noticed the menu for state banquets is written in french. Must be a connection

 

[Stefan]

Why is it that the British system of royal titles bears a closer resemblance to the old French system of royal titles than the German system, even though the current direct line of British royals began with the German-born George I and George II and married mostly Germans throughout the 18th and 19th centuries?

Perhaps because that System was already well established when the Hannover's came on the british Throne.

 

[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?

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.

I wonder if these posts:

Lord Ahmed, for example, has been convicted in British courts of sexually assaulting two children. He retains his peerage to this day. (He has been expelled from the House of Lords, but he remains a baron.)

Lord Ahmed: Call to strip child sex abuse peer of title

Lord Ahmed's title is an "insult to his victims", an MP says following the peer's conviction.

www.bbc.co.uk

https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2022-02-22/hl6356

Even in the worst-case scenario and interpretation of the Duke of York’s actions, he has not been convicted in court of sexually assaulting two children. So why is it that Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor must lose all his titles as “censure” but Nazir Ahmed can keep his?

I’d say the reason is simple. The Andrew Problem received international attention, and people across Asia and the Americas know about his scandals. This is actually the first time I have even heard of Nazir Ahmed (and I am not defending him either).

Andrew’s situation triggered a serious risk management response. He damaged the reputation of the monarchy, and the King has to prioritise the institution’s survival. Risk management does not require actual evidence, it is about protecting the image and stability of the Crown.

Most people haven't got a clue who Lord Ahmed is. It's as simple as that. The subject of his losing his titles just hasn't arisen.

What ought to happen and what actually does happen are two very different things. Stripping him of his title would require an Act of Parliament. Parliament hasn't got time/cannot be bothered to strip Lord Ahmed of his title. If he was front page news, most people would say that he should lose his title. As it is, he's not front page news, most people aren't aware of who he is or what he's done, so it's not happening.

may also explain why Prince Albert of Schleswig-Holstein was never stripped of his British title (HH), even after the Dukes of Cumberland, Brunswick, and Saxe-Coburg and Gotha were stripped of theirs.

The Dukes of Brunswick and Saxe-Coburg and Gotha were reigning German monarchs, and the Duke of Cumberland was the father of one such. Perhaps they thus received more media attention than Prince Albert of Schleswig-Holstein, who at the time was "only" one of many grandchildren of Queen Victoria and a junior member of a no longer reigning German ducal family.

If more attention translates to a greater risk of having titles stripped, the difference in treatment would in line with that.

In support of that idea, the fourth person who was stripped of his British titles under the Titles Deprivation Act...

"Their Lordships do humbly report to Your Majesty that the persons hereinafter named have adhered to Your Majesty's enemies during the present war:—
His Royal Highness Leopold Charles, Duke of Albany, Earl of Clarence and Baron Arklow.
His Royal Highness Ernest Augustus, Duke of Cumberland and Teviotdale, Earl of Armagh.
His Royal Highness Ernest Augustus (Duke of Brunswick), Prince of Great Britain and Ireland.
Henry, Viscount Taaffe of Corren and Baron of Ballymote."

Titles Deprivation Act (1917/1919)

apparently was included in the deprivation order due to someone's letter to the newspaper complaining about his title:

"In the wartime furore over the three German dukes, Viscount Taaffe almost escaped with his Irish titles intact. But in 1917, during the debate over the Titles Deprivation Bill, an anonymous correspondent wrote to The Times to point out that ‘no reference appears to have been made to the fact that an Irish peer, Viscount Taaffe, the 12th of that title, is said to be now serving, with his son, in the Austrian Army’. The writer cited with approval Elizabeth I’s command that ‘her dogs should wear no collars but her own’."

The Last Viscount Taaffe

On Saturday 29 March 1919, under the headline ‘Traitor Peers’, The Times announced that four members of the House of Lords who had ‘adhered to the King’s enemies during the war’ were to lose their …

adriantinniswood.wordpress.com

 

[Lord-of-the-Manor]

I find discussions about British styles and titles fascinating. Thanks to everyone who contributes their knowledge

 

[hereditarytitles]

I wonder if these posts:









may also explain why Prince Albert of Schleswig-Holstein was never stripped of his British title (HH), even after the Dukes of Cumberland, Brunswick, and Saxe-Coburg and Gotha were stripped of theirs.

The Dukes of Brunswick and Saxe-Coburg and Gotha were reigning German monarchs, and the Duke of Cumberland was the father of one such. Perhaps they thus received more media attention than Prince Albert of Schleswig-Holstein, who at the time was "only" one of many grandchildren of Queen Victoria and a junior member of a no longer reigning German ducal family.

If more attention translates to a greater risk of having titles stripped, the difference in treatment would in line with that.

In support of that idea, the fourth person who was stripped of his British titles under the Titles Deprivation Act...

"Their Lordships do humbly report to Your Majesty that the persons hereinafter named have adhered to Your Majesty's enemies during the present war:—​

His Royal Highness Leopold Charles, Duke of Albany, Earl of Clarence and Baron Arklow.​

His Royal Highness Ernest Augustus, Duke of Cumberland and Teviotdale, Earl of Armagh.​

His Royal Highness Ernest Augustus (Duke of Brunswick), Prince of Great Britain and Ireland.​

Henry, Viscount Taaffe of Corren and Baron of Ballymote."​

​

Titles Deprivation Act (1917/1919)

apparently was included in the deprivation order due to someone's letter to the newspaper complaining about his title:

"In the wartime furore over the three German dukes, Viscount Taaffe almost escaped with his Irish titles intact. But in 1917, during the debate over the Titles Deprivation Bill, an anonymous correspondent wrote to The Times to point out that ‘no reference appears to have been made to the fact that an Irish peer, Viscount Taaffe, the 12th of that title, is said to be now serving, with his son, in the Austrian Army’. The writer cited with approval Elizabeth I’s command that ‘her dogs should wear no collars but her own’."​

​

The Last Viscount Taaffe

On Saturday 29 March 1919, under the headline ‘Traitor Peers’, The Times announced that four members of the House of Lords who had ‘adhered to the King’s enemies during the war’ were to lose their …

adriantinniswood.wordpress.com

​

Beautiful avatar, Tatiana Maria

 

[Mbruno]

For her sake as well as that of the BRF she needs to be taken away from sight, and never allowed to speak in any capacity. Prince Williams has a proposal, which perhaps the BRF should consider sooner rather than later.

Prince William to change monarchy ‘forever,’ no titles for Beatrice, Eugenie

The article you linked has some factual errors such as claiming King Felipe VI "removed" his sister's Cristina "title of princess". He did not. Cristina remains an infanta (the Spanish equivalent to a princess other than the Crown Princess) and an HRH. What was removed was her title of Duchess of Palma de Mallorca, which is a title of nobility belonging to the royal family.

As far as Prince William's hypothetical plans, the rational move would be to follow the Spanish model, i.e., only children of a monarch and children of the heir should be princes/ princesses and HRHs. Grandchildren of a monarch born in collateral line could be given the honorary prefix of Lord/Lady, which would be a British equivalent to the Excelentísimo(a) Señor(a) prefix used by children of infantes/infantas in Spain.

I am confident that this rule will apply to William's grandchildren and subsequent generations. As much as William might want it to apply too to Harry's children or to the York sisters, I doubt he will go that route because the controversy arising from it, especially in the case of Archie and Lilibet, will outweigh the benefits.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I don’t think there would be any controversy, outside of a small circle of interested royal watchers like ourselves, from stripping the York sisters of their princess titles. They are not perceived as conventionally beautiful, they do not have a vociferous fandom, and they are not likely to publicly complain if they are stripped of their titles. Those criteria, rather than any sort of principles, seem to be the main drivers of backlash to royal title and protocol decisions.

See Denmark for a recent example: Numerous royal watchers condemned the stripping of the Prince title from Prince Nikolai (who was young and considered handsome by many, and publicly reacted with anger and sadness) – but most of them remained entirely silent about the stripping of the Prince title and the throne from Prince Ingolf (who was never handsome, is now old, and always treated his demotion with quiet acceptance).

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Beautiful avatar, Tatiana Maria

Thank you, @Toledo did a wonderful job! (For readers who haven’t seen Toledo’s lovely avatar gallery and tutorial, it is here: Creating and Uploading Avatars)

 

[Silverpot]

Thank you, @Toledo did a wonderful job! (For readers who haven’t seen Toledo’s lovely avatar gallery and tutorial, it is here: Creating and Uploading Avatars)

I was about to ask what tiara that is

 

[Angela Cliffe - Stuarts]

I think if there is ever a time when a person in the family, further down the line has two parents born Royals (one would need to be international like Swedish or Dutch etc unless a first or second cousin marraige which is illegal) then they should take that going forwards for another generation and not Lord or Lady but that doesn't apply to anyone now and there are only 8 reigning Houses that that could realistically apply to I think now. I think the Royals Dukes/titles should go down the female lines also based on age maybe. Seems to snub your own progeny etc - but who can say..... strange and unnatural to discount daughters.

I think actually if Queen Victoria had had only about 3 children and the descendants had stayed mostly here, largely married Brits and overall Royal Family had been smaller and not so German connected (re wars) there wouldn't be an issue with needing to 'trim the tree' at least in the publics or medias eyes. This leading into perceptions of extrenious relatives living in Palaces forever when they don't carry out duties but are private 'business people' or are retired from such.

One thing that dissapointed me quite a bit was late Queen Elizabeth seemed to be very resistant to the idea of Female lines of inheritance and the importance of that both historically and in the sense of natural fairness (an anciently our tradition too I think). I think something was too heavily influenced by post Victoiran chauvenism. People can choose to give up titles for their children but in general more anciently and in Europe including France, women's heritage and being born from a Royal or any such clan/line mother was what you where and it transcended waht we now call 'social class'. Today maybe there is an anaolgy to citzenship and people having citizenship quite rightly from both parents or the mothers side.