Questions about British Styles and Titles 3: Aug 2023 -

[HenRach Dominion]

Question: If HRH The Prince of Wales becomes king before any of his children are married (or they're not given titles upon marriage for one reason or another), would their titles be

- HRH The Duke of Cornwall or HRH The Prince of Wales
- HRH The Princess Charlotte
- HRH The Prince Louis

The dukedom of Cambridge would merge with the crown when HRH The Prince of Wales becomes king, right?

 

[Somebody]

Question: If HRH The Prince of Wales becomes king before any of his children are married (or they're not given titles upon marriage for one reason or another), would their titles be

- HRH The Duke of Cornwall or HRH The Prince of Wales
- HRH The Princess Charlotte
- HRH The Prince Louis

The dukedom of Cambridge would merge with the crown when HRH The Prince of Wales becomes king, right?

That is correct. George would become HRH The Duke of Cornwall immediately upon his father's ascension to the throne. It is up to the new king to bestow the title of Prince of Wales - if he is as quick as the current king, it will only take a day... and as soon as George is made Prince of Wales, he will be known as HRH The Prince of Wales (although he also remains Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles, and Prince and Great Steward of Scotland).

 

[ppetrica]

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

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

Quoting the government's explanation from 1923:

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

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/TNA/HO_144_22945.htm

Please correct me if I got it all wrong.
Those women are not princesses in their own right, but princesses by marriage.
Diana was never Princess Diana (even though most people called her that, even Prince Philip) - she was HRH The Princess Charles, Princess of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall, etc.
We can see it still today with Prince Michael of Kent's wife - she is not HRH Princess Marie-Christine of Kent, but HRH Princess Michael of Kent.

 

[Queen Claude]

The Princess Charles would have been a lesser title so it definitely would not have come first, but I don't think by custom it would be used at all for wives of royal dukes and higher. Bear in mind that it is not a lengthy custom because royals did not marry non-royals until relatively recently, hence the inquiry about how Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon will be styled upon marriage.

In the case of Diana, Charles' Prince of Wales title was his highest title, so that would come first:
Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall, etc. She became a Princess of the United Kingdom upon marriage but in her case, she had Princess as her main title because her husband's was The Prince of Wales, most royal men in recent memory carry the title His Royal Highness The Duke of ______, and their wives are Her Royal Highness The Duchess of ______

Her Royal Highness Princess Michael of Kent has that style due to her husband not having a dukedom. Prince Michael's older brother Edward is His Royal Highness The Duke of Kent and his cousin Richard His Royal Highness The Duke of Gloucester.and their wives are Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Kent and Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Gloucester.

 

[HenRach Dominion]

More title questions:

If a queen consort outlives her king, the traditional title would be HM Queen ___ rather than another title, correct? HM The Queen Mother went by that because it would be confusing to have a HM Queen Elizabeth and HM The Queen, who's also named Elizabeth, right? Are there any historical examples of British queen consorts who didn't go by HM Queen ______ after the deaths of their husbands?

Also, if a king and queen divorced, could she still use queen in some form as a courtesy title, like divorced noblewomen do?

Finally, I remember hearing before HM The King ascended the throne that he may use the regnal name of George VII rather than Charles III. Why is that? Was it to honor his grandfather, or something else?

 

[Alison H]

It was just speculation. I suppose the idea was continuity, in that there've been six King Georges in the last 300 years, and the last Charles was before the Glorious Revolution, but I don't think anyone's bothered about that, and it must have been considered when he was named as a baby.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Also, if a king and queen divorced, could she still use queen in some form as a courtesy title, like divorced noblewomen do?

There is no legislation and no precedents as far as I am aware (for those thinking of Henry VIII of England, his marriages terminated in annulment rather than by divorce in the present-day sense). I assume the decision will be made when the situation arises, as in it was in 1996, when the first divorces involving royal princes occurred.



I have a question of my own: Did the Palace ever clarify whether the divorced Diana, Princess of Wales and Sarah, Duchess of York remained, in an official sense, princesses? The letters patent of 1996 does not clear up the issue:

a former wife (other than a widow until she shall remarry) of a son of a Sovereign of the Realms of a son of a son of a Sovereign and of the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales shall not be entitled to hold and enjoy the style title or attribute of Royal Highness

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/prince_highness_docs.htm#1996​

Of course, Diana continued to be styled "Diana, Princess of Wales", but given that, in the UK system, there is a difference between a true duchess and a divorced former wife who is only called Duchess as a courtesy, I think it is fair to ask the question.

 

[Durham]

A divorced wife of a king would no longer be The Queen so it's a bit of a conundrum.

Queen-divorcee? Not being entirely serious here.

 

[Lilyflo]

I have a question of my own: Did the Palace ever clarify whether the divorced Diana, Princess of Wales and Sarah, Duchess of York remained, in an official sense, princesses? The letters patent of 1996 does not clear up the issue:

Interesting question!

I note that on the birth certificate of Prince George, his mother's occupation was listed as 'Princess of the United Kingdom'. That sounds like an official acknowledgment that Catherine is a princess.

If Diana had a UK death certificate (is it more likely to be French?), her occupation would be recorded. I doubt it would say 'Princess of the United Kingdom' as she was no longer married to a Prince.

My money is on Diana and Sarah not being official princesses as they no longer have the occupation and their title is a courtesy one.

 

[MonacoRoyalFan]

The most updated document from the Royal Household of members of the royal family include Sarah as very much a member, although obviously last in order of precedence.

https://www.royal.uk/sites/default/files/documents/2023-05/ANNEX D - Royal Family-4.pdf

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I think she has always been included, but unfortunately, it does not clarify the princess-or-not issue as the members of the royal family listed include some who are definitely not princesses, e.g. Zara Tindall.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

King George V apparently never considered Alastair to have a "birthright" to Highness/Prince status, even before he issued his 1917 Letters Patent.

Alastair's father wrote that Alastair was a "Prince" on Alastair's birth registration in 1914. But when Alastair's grandmother consulted the Government and King for their advice 2.5 years later (!), she was told that that no step should be taken without consulting the King, and it was decided that the King would need to issue a warrant for Alastair to be styled as Prince.

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

This of course happened before the King issued his November 1917 letters patent which clarified and limited the entitlement to Prince/Princess status.

Thank you for the link. I have come across it before.

It suggests to me that George v understood that by convention/natural justice Alastair was a prince but that he was not overly concerned with how the boy was styled. Otherwise I think he wouldn't have been prepared to formally acknowledge it before events overtook the rf in 1917.

I see what you mean. I suppose it is open to interpretation as the warrant was never issued.

One preparatory document supports your interpretation with references to Alastair being "entitled" to the Highness Prince style. However, the preparatory work also frequently refers to "the King's will" and "His Majesty's Pleasure". It also includes a note from the King's private secretary stating: "At present he [Alastair] really has no name as a Member of the Royal Family, although he was born Earl of Macduff."

The draft warrants refer to "defining and fixing the style and designation".

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/TNA/HO_45_18980.htm
https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/TNA/LCO_2_7299.htm

 

[Somebody]

Male-line great grandchildren did enjoy that style in the past. For example, king George VI himself was born as highness (as a male-line great grandchild of the monarch) - not as a royal highness. His titles:

14 December 1895 – 28 May 1898: His Highness Prince Albert of York
28 May 1898 – 22 January 1901: His Royal Highness Prince Albert of York
22 January 1901 – 9 November 1901: His Royal Highness Prince Albert of Cornwall and York
9 November 1901 – 6 May 1910: His Royal Highness Prince Albert of Wales
6 May 1910 – 3 June 1920: His Royal Highness The Prince Albert
3 June 1920 – 11 December 1936: His Royal Highness The Duke of York
Subsidiary titles: Earl of Inverness and Baron Killarney
11 December 1936 – 6 February 1952: His Majesty The King

Source: wikipedia

It was because of a LP issued by queen Victoria that he and his siblings were made royal highnesses in 1898 (given that the death of their uncle a few years earlier meant that their father would become king one day as well as his elder brother).

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Wikipedia is wrong to claim he did not become "The" Prince until his father became king in 1910. Prior to the reign of Elizabeth II, all princes and princesses could be styled as The Prince or The Princess.

Here one can see his father referred as His Royal Highness The Prince George of Wales, K.G. in 1892, when he was only the grandson of the monarch.

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/26254/page/602


The future George VI and his siblings were born as children of a prince expected to become king, so in that regard I do think authorities were correct not to treat them as precedents for Alastair, who was a great-grandson by a junior line.

 

[Durham]

I see what you mean. I suppose it is open to interpretation as the warrant was never issued.

One preparatory document supports your interpretation with references to Alastair being "entitled" to the Highness Prince style. However, the preparatory work also frequently refers to "the King's will" and "His Majesty's Pleasure". It also includes a note from the King's private secretary stating: "At present he [Alastair] really has no name as a Member of the Royal Family, although he was born Earl of Macduff."

The draft warrants refer to "defining and fixing the style and designation".

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/TNA/HO_45_18980.htm
https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/TNA/LCO_2_7299.htm

Thank you for these links.

It is extraordinary to think (Cumberland aside & also William Frederick since he would have been the grandson of a monarch if his grandfather Fredrick had not predeceased George ii) that there had been no legitimate male line great grandsons, up until 1917, in a junior line of a British monarch since maybe Edward 4th Duke of York born 1442 (subsequently Edward iv of England by usurpation).

There are possibly other English & Scottish examples?

 

[Somebody]

Wikipedia is wrong to claim he did not become "The" Prince until his father became king in 1910. Prior to the reign of Elizabeth II, all princes and princesses could be styled as The Prince or The Princess.

Here one can see his father referred as His Royal Highness The Prince George of Wales, K.G. in 1892, when he was only the grandson of the monarch.

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/26254/page/602

The main change in 1910 was that he was no longer 'of Wales'.

The future George VI and his siblings were born as children of a prince expected to become king, so in that regard I do think authorities were correct not to treat them as precedents for Alastair, who was a great-grandson by a junior line.

At first they were treated as great-grandsons of a junior line (being children of the second son of the Prince of Wales) -i.e., as highnesses instead of royal highnesses - there upgrade to royal highnesses came precisely because although their father was the second son, he had become the eldest living son when his brother died [this specific situation was also reflected in the LPs in 1917; where it refers to the 'eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales' - the case in which the eldest son of the king had died childless and therefore, his younger brother is now the heir is not addressed in these LPs].

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The main change in 1910 was that he was no longer 'of Wales'.

I don't think there was any other title change in 1910 aside from no longer being 'of Wales', since there was no 'The' distinction at the time.

At first they were treated as great-grandsons of a junior line (being children of the second son of the Prince of Wales) -i.e., as highnesses instead of royal highnesses - there upgrade to royal highnesses came precisely because although their father was the second son, he had become the eldest living son when his brother died [this specific situation was also reflected in the LPs in 1917; where it refers to the 'eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales' - the case in which the eldest son of the king had died childless and therefore, his younger brother is now the heir is not addressed in these LPs].

My apologies, but I'm not sure I understand your post. The point I was trying to make was that Alastair was the first legitimate male-line great-grandchild whose father and paternal grandfather were not expected to become kings and who did not belong to a German royal family, so there was no true precedent for his situation (thus the palace and government consultations).

 

[Somebody]

Thank you for these links.

It is extraordinary to think (Cumberland aside & also William Frederick since he would have been the grandson of a monarch if his grandfather Fredrick had not predeceased George ii) that there had been no legitimate male line great grandsons up until 1917 in a junior line of a British monarch since maybe Edward 4th Duke of York born 1442 (subsequently Edward iv of England by usurpation).

There are possibly other English & Scottish examples?

There were quite a few of them (and also a few great-granddaughters in male line) among Victoria's descendants, however, most of them were born in the line of her grandson who ended up as the Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha or ended up becoming more senior due to the eldest son dying relatively young:

Edward VII (eldest son) --> George V (second son; later king) --> David (b. 1894), Albert (b. 1895), Mary (b. 1897), Henry (1900), George (1902), John (1905) [the eldest three were born as 'highnesses', the younger three as 'royal highnesses'; i.e. after the LP had been issued - although, both George and John would have been royal highnesses anyway as they were born during their grandfather's reign]
Arthur (third son) --> Arthur (only son) --> Alistair (only son; b. 1914)
Leopold (youngest/fourth son) --> Charles Edward (only son; later Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha) --> Johann Leopold (b. 1906), Sibylla (b. 1908), Hubertus (b. 1909), Caroline Mathilde (b. 1912), Friedrich Josias (b. 1918)

 

[Somebody]

I don't think there was any other title change in 1910 aside from no longer being 'of Wales', since there was no 'The' distinction at the time.

I was trying to state that wikipedia was highlighting the change from 'of Wales' to no longer being 'of Wales'.

My apologies, but I'm not sure I understand your post. The point I was trying to make was that Alastair was the first legitimate male-line great-grandchild whose father and paternal grandfather were not expected to become kings and who did not belong to a German royal family, so there was no true precedent for his situation (thus the palace and government consultations).

If the plain 'highness' style was intended for those that were in direct line but still great-grandchildren, it would not make sense for Queen Victoria to make them 'royal highnesess' while still in that same position; as they would automatically become royal highnesses the moment their grandfather would be the monarch. So, logically, that style apparently was reserved for great-grandchildren in the male line.

However, as we all know, the British have not always been consistent in their styles and titles (of which Alastair's mother is a prime example being a female-line granddaughter but still being made a highness and princess later in life (together with her sister)).

 

[Somebody]

This LP from 1864 is interesting as it extends the use of 'Royal Highness', which previously was reserved to only the children of the Sovereign; while all others were known as 'Highness'.

Victoria by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland Queen Defender of the Faith To all to Whom these presents shall come Greeting : Whereas we taking into our Royal consideration that the Princes and Princesses of Our Royal Family descended from and in lineal succession to the Crown as now established by law all bear the style and title of Highness but that it has not been declared or defined by due authority what members of the Royal Family (other than the Children of the Sovereign) are entitled to the style of “Royal Highness”. We deem it therefore expedient that the same should be henceforth established defined and limited in manner hereinafter declared: Know Ye therefore that in the exercise of Our Royal and undoubted Prerogative and of Our Especial grace We do hereby declare our Royal Will and Pleasure that besides the Children of the Sovereign of these Realms the Children of the Sons of any Sovereign of Great Britain and Ireland shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style title or attribute of “Royal Highness” with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names or with their other titles of Honor: Our Will and Pleasure further is that Our Earl Marshal of England or his Deputy for the time being do cause these our Letters Patent or the Enrolment thereof to be recorded in the College of Arms to the end that our Officers of Arms and all others may take due notice thereof. In Witness whereof We have caused these Our Letters to be made Patent. Witness Ourself at Westminster the thirtieth day of January in the twenty seventh year of Our Reign.

By Warrant under the Queen's Sign Manual.
C. Romilly

(Original letters patent, National Archives, HO 125/1)
Whitehall, Feb. 3.
The Queen has been pleased by letters patent under the Great Seal, to declare her Royal will and pleasure that, besides the children of the Sovereigns of these realms, the children of the sons of any Sovereign of Great Britain and Ireland shall have, and at all times hold and enjoy, the style, title or attribute of Royal Highnes with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their respective christian names, or with their other titles of honour; and further to declare her will and pleasure that the Earl Marshal of England, or his Deputy for the time being, do cause the said letters patent to be recorded in Her Majesty's College of Arms to the end that the officers of arms, and all others, may take due notice thereof.

Source

Trying to read this in that time, in which princesses would marry other princes and by doing so leave the royal family, to me this suggests that all members of the royal family were princes and princesses and 'at least' highnesses [which is probably why at a later point the Fife-sisters were made highnesses and princesses as well; as they were an exception given that their mother did not marry a foreign prince, so they needed to figure out how to deal with such a situation - this is consistent with the view expressed above in which all members of the royal family were highnesses and prince(ss)]; so that would include any male-line grandchildren. Children and grand-children (in male line) of the Sovereign were in a special class of their own as not just 'highnesses' but 'royal highnesses'.

 

[Somebody]

Had the LP of 1898 (by Victoria) not been overruled by the LP of 1917 (by George V), queen Elizabeth would not have needed to create her own LPs to ensure that all children of William as the heir of the Prince of Wales were royal highnesses from birth:

Children of the eldest son of any Prince of Wales (May 28, 1898)
Victoria by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland Queen Defender of the Faith To all to whom these presents shall come, Greeting: Whereas by virtue of Our Letters Patent dated the thirtieth of January one thousand eight hundred and sixty four wherein We declared Our Royal will and pleasure in that behalf the children of the sons of any Sovereign of Great Britain and Ireland are entitled to the style of "Royal Highness" Know Ye that in the exercise of our Royal and undoubted prerogative and of Our especial grace We do hereby declare our further Royal will and pleasure that the children of the eldest son of any Prince of Wales shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style title or attribute of "Royal Highness" in addition to such titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their Christian names or other titles of honour if any as they may otherwise possess Our will and pleasure further is that Our Earl Marshal of England or his deputy for the time being do cause these our Letters Patent or the enrolment thereof to be recorded in Our College of Arms to the end that Our officers of Arms and all others may take due notice thereof. In Witness whereof we have caused these Our Letters to be made Patent.. Witness Ourself etc.

(from a copy in the National Archives, LCO 2/2028)

Crown Office, May 31, 1898
The Queen has been pleased by letters patent under the Great Seal, to declare that the children of the eldest son of any Prince of Wales shall have, and at all times hold and enjoy, the style, title, and attribute of "Royal Highness".

(Times, June 1 1898, p. 3F, quoting the Gazette. The letters are dated May 28, 1898.)

Also interesting, is that an earlier draft of the above LP specifically stated that all other great grandchildren would remain ("shall be held and enjoyed") highnesses. Apparently, that phrase was not considered necessary in the end as it was already established practice (as referenced by the previous LPs of 1864).

However, in 1917 George V decided to do away with the styles of highness, serene highness and royal highness and titular dignity of prince(ss) for those that were not included in the three categories that he deemed worthy of being a prince(ss) within the royal house: children, children of sons and the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

If the plain 'highness' style was intended for those that were in direct line but still great-grandchildren, it would not make sense for Queen Victoria to make them 'royal highnesess' while still in that same position; as they would automatically become royal highnesses the moment their grandfather would be the monarch. So, logically, that style apparently was reserved for great-grandchildren in the male line.

Thank you for clarifying. Unfortunately, I still am not seeing how Queen Victoria deciding that her direct-line great-grandchildren would be Royal Highnesses logically implies she intended future British junior-male-line great-grandchildren (who did not exist in her time) to be Highnesses. That said, I do agree with you that this was probably her expectation, since she had generous policies in regards to titles. For example, as you pointed out above, in the preamble to her 1864 letters patent it stated:

the Princes and Princesses of Our Royal Family descended from and in lineal succession to the Crown as now established by law all bear the style and title of Highness​

although she seems to have informally reneged on that understanding as she allowed the children of the Duchess of Teck (Princess Mary Adelaide of Cambridge) to be styled as "mere" Serene Highnesses even though they were presumably in succession to the Crown. Nevertheless, she remained more generous than her grandson George V.

However, as we all know, the British have not always been consistent in their styles and titles (of which Alastair's mother is a prime example being a female-line granddaughter but still being made a highness and princess later in life (together with her sister)).

The British female-line grandchildren of Queen Victoria (her daughters Helena and Beatrice married foreign princes who moved to the UK, were naturalized and joined the British royal family) were made Highnesses by the queen at birth, so creating the Duff sisters Highnesses in the next generation restored consistency.

Edward VII (eldest son) --> George V (second son; later king) --> David (b. 1894), Albert (b. 1895), Mary (b. 1897), Henry (1900), George (1902), John (1905) [the eldest three were born as 'highnesses', the younger three as 'royal highnesses'; i.e. after the LP had been issued - although, both George and John would have been royal highnesses anyway as they were born during their grandfather's reign]

Arthur (third son) --> Arthur (only son) --> Alistair (only son; b. 1914)
Leopold (youngest/fourth son) --> Charles Edward (only son; later Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha) --> Johann Leopold (b. 1906), Sibylla (b. 1908), Hubertus (b. 1909), Caroline Mathilde (b. 1912), Friedrich Josias (b. 1918)

George V was the oldest son (his older brother died childless) by the time of his marriage, while Charles Edward was the Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha by the time of his marriage. (I am sure you know all this, but would like to make it clear for other readers.)

 

[classyjackie]

I feel like Charles or a future monarch should change George V's 1917 Letters Patent to not just the children of the monarch, and grandchildren of the monarch in the male line having HRH/Prince/ess but also the female line. Seem's a bit outdated to have that still have that.

I think Sweden is by far the best at how they have handled the passing of titles for the next generation. All grandchildren of the King receive Prince/Princess but only those who will be working royals in the future are HRH and members of the royal house. I also love that titles can be passed by women.

 

[Somebody]

The most likely route seems to be that the style and title of royal highness and prince(ss) will be limited to children of monarchs and their direct heirs. Their children (unless of the heir) will most likely be addressed as children of a peer/duke (Charles already introduced a life dukedom for his brother; so that practice can easily be extended to daughters of the monarch).

 

[muriel]

The most likely route seems to be that the style and title of royal highness and prince(ss) will be limited to children of monarchs and their direct heirs. Their children (unless of the heir) will most likely be addressed as children of a peer/duke (Charles already introduced a life dukedom for his brother; so that practice can easily be extended to daughters of the monarch).

Might a fair potential update of the 1917 letters patent, to reflect the current times be that

1) all the children of the monarch carry royal titles,
2) all the children of the heir to the throne all carry titles.

Not that I am suggesting this be applied retroactively, but had this been put in place, we would have the Wales children carrying titles but the Sussex children not carrying titles.

 

[Mbruno]

I feel like Charles or a future monarch should change George V's 1917 Letters Patent to not just the children of the monarch, and grandchildren of the monarch in the male line having HRH/Prince/ess but also the female line. Seem's a bit outdated to have that still have that.

I think Sweden is by far the best at how they have handled the passing of titles for the next generation. All grandchildren of the King receive Prince/Princess but only those who will be working royals in the future are HRH and members of the royal house. I also love that titles can be passed by women.

Grandchildren in maternal line of the King are also princes/princesses in Belgium (see e.g. Princess Astrid's and Princess Delphine's children). It is also possible to transmit titles in maternal line in the Netherlands and in Spain, but, in those cases, only to the children of the heir presumptive (respectively the Princess of Orange and the Princess of Asturias).

In fact, besides Spain and the Netherlands, Denmark now also seems to restrict both the title of Prince/Princess and the style of Royal Highness to children of the heir and Norway goes one step further restricting them only to the eldest child of the heir.

It is true, however, that the UK is the only extant European kingdom with gender-based rules for royal titles.

 

[Stefan]

Grandchildren in maternal line of the King are also princes/princesses in Belgium (see e.g. Princess Astrid's and Princess Delphine's children). It is also possible to transmit titles in maternal line in the Netherlands and in Spain, but, in those cases, only to the children of the heir presumptive (respectively the Princess of Orange and the Princess of Asturias).

In fact, besides Spain and the Netherlands, Denmark now also seems to restrict both the title of Prince/Princess and the style of Royal Highness to children of the heir and Norway goes one step further restricting them only to the eldest child of the heir.

It is true, however, that the UK is the only extant European kingdom with gender-based rules for royal titles.

But in the Netherlands Titles are not given solely by the monarch but are decided by the Parliament together with a Bill who gives consent to marriages of members of the Royal House. And as we can see for the children of Prince Constantijn they where downgraded to Count/Countess and not given Princely Titles like the children of Princess Margriet

 

[Mbruno]

But in the Netherlands Titles are not given solely by the monarch but are decided by the Parliament together with a Bill who gives consent to marriages of members of the Royal House. And as we can see for the children of Prince Constantijn they where downgraded to Count/Countess and not given Princely Titles like the children of Princess Margriet

Not exactly. Under current Dutch law, only the heir to the throne and a former monarch upon abdication are automatically entitled to be Prince/ Princess of the Netherlands. The title may be given by royal decree to spouses of the monarch or of the heir, and to children born of a lawful wedding of the monarch or of the heir . Royal decrees involve only the monarch and the government, so parliamentary approval is not required.

A bill passed in a joint session of the two Houses of Parliament is needed for a person in the line of succession to marry without forfeiting his or her succession rights. People who lose their succession rights cease to be members of the Royal House and, under the law, they lose accordingly the title of Prince or Princess of the Netherlands.

The law doesn’t say anything though about styles such as HRH, so I assume that is entirely up to the monarch and the government, by royal decree countersigned by a minister. Prince Friso , for example, kept the HRH following his unconsented marriage, but ceased to be a Prince of the Netherlands as he was no longer a member of the Royal House. He was given a hereditary title of nobility, which he count pass on to his children.

 

[HenRach Dominion]

Hypothetical title question:

If a British Prince married a British Princess and the former is not given a dukedom/earldom or is Prince of Wales, would she use her own princely title or her husband's? For example:

If HRH Princess Lilibet of Sussex married HRH Prince George of Wales or HRH Prince Louis of Wales, would she be HRH Princess Lilibet of Sussex or HRH Princess George/Louis of Wales?

If HRH Princess Charlotte of Wales married HRH Prince Archie of Sussex, would she be HRH Princess Charlotte of Wales or HRH Princess Archie of Sussex?

Are there any historical examples of this situation?

(And before anyone says it, "It will never happen" comments are unhelpful. The question is hypothetical for a reason.)

 

[Stefan]

Hypothetical title question:

If a British Prince married a British Princess and the former is not given a dukedom/earldom or is Prince of Wales, would she use her own princely title or her husband's? For example:

If HRH Princess Lilibet of Sussex married HRH Prince George of Wales or HRH Prince Louis of Wales, would she be HRH Princess Lilibet of Sussex or HRH Princess George/Louis of Wales?

If HRH Princess Charlotte of Wales married HRH Prince Archie of Sussex, would she be HRH Princess Charlotte of Wales or HRH Princess Archie of Sussex?

Are there any historical examples of this situation?

(And before anyone says it, "It will never happen" comments are unhelpful. The question is hypothetical for a reason.)

There is the example of Priness Alexandra, Duchess of of Fife who married Prince Arthur of Connaught
She was styled as Princess Arthur of Connaught Duchess of fife and not the duchess of Fife after her marriage.