Questions about British Styles and Titles 3: Aug 2023 -


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
HenRach Dominion said:
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.)
Click to expand...

Historically, women take the feminine form of their husband's title whether they are titled or not. So, if Princess Lilibet married Prince George, she'd be HRH Princess George of Wales. Same with Princess Charlotte. She'd be HRH Princess Archie of Sussex.

Where I believe the difference would be between Lilibet/Charlotte and say, Catherine and Meghan, is if George and Archie were given dukedoms or earldoms, they could keep the word "Princess" before their names as they are princesses of the blood. For example, if George was created Duke of Albany (hypothetical, of course), Lilibet would be HRH Princess Lilibet, Duchess of Albany. Same with Charlotte if Archie was created Duke of Albany. She'd be HRH Princess Charlotte, Duchess of Albany.

Neither Catherine nor Meghan were ever Princess Catherine or Princess Meghan -- They are Princess William and Princess Henry.
 
A peerage is always considered higher than being a princess/prince, so while Catherine is HRH The Princess of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall and Cambridge (etc), The Princess William, she only uses her highest title, which is HRH The Princess of Wales. The same would apply to other wives of peers. So in your example, 'HRH The Duchess of Albany' would be the way they would be addressed - independent of whether they were born as princesses.
 
Somebody said:
A peerage is always considered higher than being a princess/prince, so while Catherine is HRH The Princess of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall and Cambridge (etc), The Princess William, she only uses her highest title, which is HRH The Princess of Wales. The same would apply to other wives of peers. So in your example, 'HRH The Duchess of Albany' would be the way they would be addressed - independent of whether they were born as princesses.
Click to expand...
But why was then the Duchess of Fife styled as Princess Arthur of Connaught, Duchess of Fife and not only as Duchess of Fife which was a Title she held of her own
 
Stefan said:
But why was then the Duchess of Fife styled as Princess Arthur of Connaught, Duchess of Fife and not only as Duchess of Fife which was a Title she held of her own
Click to expand...
Point taken, it seems a bit more complicated than I thought. Probably because at that time being a wife was even more important and needed to be stressed in the way she was addressed?

I found another counter example: HRH The Princess Mary, she was apparently referred to as HRH The Princess Mary, Viscountess Lascelles and later as HRH The Princess Mary, Countess of Harewood until she became the Princess Royal.

It is interesting that Princesses and Ladies are among the few women in the UK who keep formally being addressed by their first name after getting married (for example Lady Rose Gilman and HRH princess Beatrice, mrs. Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi) - if not married to a peer (or being the Princess Royal - although she is referred by her own title and not by her first name).
 
Somebody said:
I found another counter example: HRH The Princess Mary, she was apparently referred to as HRH The Princess Mary, Viscountess Lascelles and later as HRH The Princess Mary, Countess of Harewood until she became the Princess Royal.
Click to expand...
And also Princess Margaret who was styled as Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdown even after divorce
 
Queen Victoria's youngest daughter, Beatrice, became Princess Henry of Battenberg, even though she was a princess in her own right (and he was "only" a morganatic prince). Her niece became Princess Louis of Battenberg. And Princess Helena became Princess Christian. So, if Charlotte or Lilibet married a prince, presumably they'd use his name.
 
Stefan said:
But why was then the Duchess of Fife styled as Princess Arthur of Connaught, Duchess of Fife and not only as Duchess of Fife which was a Title she held of her own
Click to expand...
Somebody said:
I found another counter example: HRH The Princess Mary, she was apparently referred to as HRH The Princess Mary, Viscountess Lascelles and later as HRH The Princess Mary, Countess of Harewood until she became the Princess Royal.
Click to expand...
Stefan said:
And also Princess Margaret who was styled as Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdown even after divorce
Click to expand...
It seems that these cases are all about a marriage between a royal highness and a non-royal highness. In those cases, the two royal highnesses kept using the title that went along with their style as royal highness (followed by their husband's style); while the one who was elevated to the style of royal highness started using her husband's style primarily and her own secondly.

HH Princess Alexandra, Duchess of Fife marrying HRH Prince Arthur of Connaught became HRH Princess Arthur of Connaught, Duchess of Fife
HRH The Princess Mary marrying the Viscount Lascelles became HRH The Princess Mary, Viscount Lascelles
HRH The Princess Margaret marrying Antony Armstrong-Jones remaind HRH The Princess Margaret (or maybe was temporarily HRH The Princess Margaret, mrs. Antony Armstrong-Jones) became HRH The Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon about 1 1/2 years later when her husband was given an earldom.

In the example provided it would be a marriage between two royal highnesses, so, wouldn't the peerage with the style of royal highness trump the title of princess by blood (of someone already styled as HRH)?

Alison H said:
Queen Victoria's youngest daughter, Beatrice, became Princess Henry of Battenberg, even though she was a princess in her own right (and he was "only" a morganatic prince). Her niece became Princess Louis of Battenberg. And Princess Helena became Princess Christian. So, if Charlotte or Lilibet married a prince, presumably they'd use his name.
Click to expand...
Henry was made a royal highness the day before their marriage. If he had not been made a royal highness, I wonder whether she would have been styled differently.

Edit: in this entrance of the Gazette (d.d. March 27, 1896) Beatrice is mentioned as 'HRH the Princess Beatrice, princess Henry of Battenberg' and Helena as 'HRH the Princess Helena, princess Christian of Schleswig-Holstein' - formally, they were of course married to foreign princes. Their sister, who married a (non-royal) peer: 'HRH the Princess Louise, Marchioness of Lorne'.

In the case of their sisters-in-law, who were all foreign princesses, their first names were not included, although in the case of Grand Duchess Maria Alexandrovna of Russia, known as 'Her Royal and Imperial Highness The Duchess of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha here other titles 'Duchess of Edinburgh' (by marriage) and 'Grand Duchess of Russia' (by birth) were also included. Their niece Louise is entered as 'HRH The Princess Louise of Wales, Duchess of Fife' (her husband was an earl upon marriage but created Duke of Fife 2 days after the wedding but wasn't made a royal highness).

 
Last edited:
Somebody said:
In the example provided it would be a marriage between two royal highnesses, so, wouldn't the peerage with the style of royal highness trump the title of princess by blood (of someone already styled as HRH)?
Click to expand...

Fife wasn’t (and isn’t) a royal duchy; Princess Louise’s father had already been rather generous in upgrading Duff’s earldom to a dukedom, granting it again so that it could pass to her daughter, and styling her daughters as HRH — but that doesn’t make it the same as a dukedom granted to a royal.

Royal dukedom > royal > peerage.
 
Prinsara said:
Fife wasn’t (and isn’t) a royal duchy; Princess Louise’s father had already been rather generous in upgrading Duff’s earldom to a dukedom, granting it again so that it could pass to her daughter, and styling her daughters as HRH — but that doesn’t make it the same as a dukedom granted to a royal.

Royal dukedom > royal > peerage.
Click to expand...
Their daughters weren't styled as royal highness but as highnesses (after initially being styled Lady X Duff); which is why I explained that it was a marriage between a highness (Alexandra) and a royal highness (Arthur). Note that it was Louise's mother Queen Victoria who made the Earl Fife a Duke (twice). Her father had no such powers (and had passed away many years earlier).

And there exist many peerages that aren't royal. Among the many peerages, there are a few royal peerages, i.e., peerages held by peers that are also royals (i.e., royal highnesses). The peerage itself is not necessarily royal as at some point it ceases to be royal: for example, the next dukes of Gloucester and Kent will not be royals, so those peerages cease to be 'royal peerages' at that point.

Nonetheless, I am not sure how that relates to the original hypothetical situation (marriage between two British royal highnesses) posed by HenRach Dominion that I discussed in the part that you quoted. So far, it seems that situation hasn't arisen as it would -in the most likely situation- have required two male-line (or heir) grandchildren of a UK monarch marrying each other [marriage between cousins wasn't out of the question in the past].
 
I mentioned it to clear up the confusion as people apparently felt the Duchesses of Fife should have been known simply as that, and outranking their royal status.

Somebody said:
Note that it was Louise's mother Queen Victoria who made the Earl Fife a Duke (twice). Her father had no such powers (and had passed away many years earlier).
Click to expand...
Note that this was her granddaughter, who later became Princess Royal. Her father became Edward VII and did indeed raise her daughters to royal rank.
 
Queen Claude said:
I noticed that on the recent communications that Kate is referred to as Catherine, The Princess of Wales.
www.instagram.com

The Prince and Princess of Wales on Instagram: "A message from Catherine, The Princess of Wales"

5M likes, 287K comments - princeandprincessofwales on March 22, 2024: "A message from Catherine, The Princess of Wales".
www.instagram.com www.instagram.com
https://twitter.com/x/status/1771235267837321694
Click to expand...
I was surprised about that too. I was expecting her to be styled HRH The Princess of Wales. My guess is because she wanted to emphasize the woman behind the position, but I believe there are examples of married women using both their names and their titles/marital names, so I'm not 100% sure about that.
 
Using the name and title with The is fine. It is wrong to refer to her as Catherine, Princess of Wales as that would signify she is divorced.
 
Prinsara said:
I mentioned it to clear up the confusion as people apparently felt the Duchesses of Fife should have been known simply as that, and outranking their royal status.
Click to expand...

During the brief period of time between becoming Duchess of Fife and becoming Princess Arthur of Connaught, she was known as HH The Duchess of Fife. That her royal peerage was formerly a non-royal peerage doesn't seem to have influenced the manner in which she was styled.


Somebody said:
HRH The Princess Margaret marrying Antony Armstrong-Jones remaind HRH The Princess Margaret (or maybe was temporarily HRH The Princess Margaret, mrs. Antony Armstrong-Jones) became HRH The Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon about 1 1/2 years later when her husband was given an earldom.
Click to expand...

She remained HRH The Princess Margaret and never used "Mrs. Anthony Armstrong-Jones".

Somebody said:
Henry was made a royal highness the day before their marriage. If he had not been made a royal highness, I wonder whether she would have been styled differently.
Click to expand...

Probably not. Her cousin HRH Princess Mary Adelaide of Cambridge married HSH The Prince of Teck (as he was styled in the UK) in 1866. They were referred to as "Her Royal Highness The Princess of Teck and His Serene Highness The Prince of Teck" in the Gazette on at least one occasion.

 
Tatiana Maria said:
She remained HRH The Princess Margaret and never used "Mrs. Anthony Armstrong-Jones".
Click to expand...
So, unlike Beatrice and Eugenie, she was never referred to as 'HRH The Princess Margaret, mrs. 'husband's name'' - but they started doing that after her husband received a peerage? Beatrice and Eugenie don't seem to use it themselves either but the court does... for example in the line of succession:

9. Princess Beatrice, Mrs. Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi
10. Miss Sienna Mapelli Mozzi
11. Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank
Click to expand...
 
Somebody said:
So, unlike Beatrice and Eugenie, she was never referred to as 'HRH The Princess Margaret, mrs. 'husband's name'' - but they started doing that after her husband received a peerage? Beatrice and Eugenie don't seem to use it themselves either but the court does... for example in the line of succession:
Click to expand...

Yes, the London Gazette confirms that she was never styled Mrs. Antony Armstrong-Jones. The practice began with Princess Alexandra of Kent, who became Princess Alexandra, the Honourable Mrs. Angus Ogilvy (her husband did not become a knight untill later).
 
Somebody said:
So, unlike Beatrice and Eugenie, she was never referred to as 'HRH The Princess Margaret, mrs. 'husband's name'' - but they started doing that after her husband received a peerage? Beatrice and Eugenie don't seem to use it themselves either but the court does... for example in the line of succession:
Click to expand...
Given her husband only accepted a peerage not when they were married but so their eventual children would have courtesy titles, I think it’s reasonable to assume Margaret didn’t care to be known as Mrs. Armstrong-Jones, but was willing to let the countess title be attached to hers… she even kept it post-divorce, when she probably had enough social clout to drop it.

Elizabeth did not treat her sister the way she treated her other female relatives. The fount of honour is idiosyncratic.
 
Tatiana Maria said:
Yes, the London Gazette confirms that she was never styled Mrs. Antony Armstrong-Jones. The practice began with Princess Alexandra of Kent, who became Princess Alexandra, the Honourable Mrs. Angus Ogilvy (her husband did not become a knight untill later).
Click to expand...
Just to be clear: that's not what I have been referring to. I assume you mean she has never been styled 'HRH The Princess Margaret, mrs. Antony Armstrong Jones'. The current princesses are also never only styled by their husband's name but always in combination with their style and title of 'HRH Princess'.

Good to know that the practice was started with Princess Alexandra of Kent in april 1963 - so, 1 1/2 - 3 years (May 1960 - October 1961) after Margaret could have used a similar way of being styled/addressed. I assume Margaret just followed her aunt's Mary's example after her husband received his peerage - as her aunt was known as HRH The Princess Mary, Viscountess Lascelles (1922-1929) and as HRH The Princess Mary, Countess of Harewood (1929-1932) before she became 'The Princess Royal'.

Often it is mentioned that her husband turned down a peerage but Margaret's husband didn't get his peerage upon marriage either but only once Margaret was (8 months) pregnant. Is it known when the peerage was offered to Angus? Was it upon their marriage or also only once his wife was about to give birth?
 
Somebody said:
I assume you mean she has never been styled 'HRH The Princess Margaret, mrs. Antony Armstrong Jones'.
Click to expand...

Yes, I did. (I abbreviated since my thought was that the 'Princess' part was not in question, but you're absolutely right that I should have written it out in full for the benefit of others reading the thread who might not have read the full discussion.) :flowers:

Somebody said:
Often it is mentioned that her husband turned down a peerage but Margaret's husband didn't get his peerage upon marriage either but only once Margaret was (8 months) pregnant. Is it known when the peerage was offered to Angus? Was it upon their marriage or also only once his wife was about to give birth?
Click to expand...

I don't know for certain, but his Telegraph obituary stated:

Since Antony Armstrong-Jones had been created Earl of Snowdon after his marriage to Princess Margaret in 1960, it was assumed that Ogilvy would also be ennobled following his marriage in 1963 to the Queen's first cousin, Princess Alexandra, the daughter of the late Prince George Duke of Kent and Princess Marina Duchess of Kent. But a keen desire to pursue a City career unaffected by his marriage led him to refuse a peerage - an example followed 10 years later by Captain Mark Phillips, when he married Princess Anne.

Although his decision not to accept a title upset traditionalists, others considered it to be in tune with contemporary attitudes towards the Royal Family.

[...]

The birth of their two children briefly ignited the old discussion about Ogilvy's decision to refuse a title, since both the children were commoners.
Click to expand...
 
Under the laws governing British royal and noble titulature, only men who marry women share their title with their spouses. Thus, only women married to men may acquire titles by marriage.

However, how are women's same-sex marriages treated for the purpose of loss of a title? For example: If Sarah, Duchess of York, hypothetically remarried to an untitled man, she would lose her courtesy title and Buckingham Palace would henceforth address her as Mrs. John Doe. But if she hypothetically remarried to an untitled woman, how would Buckingham Palace address her? Most likely not as Mrs. Jane Doe, for obvious reasons. Would she continue being styled Sarah, Duchess of York, possibly on the grounds that same-sex marriages did not exist in law when the laws on titles came into being and so are not recognized for the purpose of titulature? Or would they address her as Mrs. Sarah Doe, Ms. Sarah Doe or Ms. Sarah Ferguson?
 
In a same sex marriage in the UK there is no convention on who takes which surname and often there is no change. For instance when I married my same sex partner we kept our respective surnames. However, some of our friends making same-sex marriages have just double-barrelled their surnames - so Mr Jones and Mr Smith both became Mr and Mr Jones-Smith. A divorced female friend of ours reverted to her maiden surname when she married her wife and then took her wife's surname as her new surname. Whoever Sarah, Duchess of York married would result in her losing her title.

I have also noticed a trend in mixed couple marriage for the bride to keep her original surname. When recently visiting Harewood House I noticed that the current countess uses the name of Diane Howse, Countess of Harewood rather than Diane Lascelles, Countess of Harewood.
 
I just noticed that among the titles of the Earl of Airlie, is the following title: Lord Ogilvy of Alith and Lintrathen, co. Forfar (the other title is Lord Ogilvy of Airlie).

Does anyone know what 'co.' stands for in this case - as it is the same location that Edward was made an earl of by his mother. You would think there might be other places in Scotland that were not yet attached to another family's titles that he could have been made an earl of.

The current earl (13th) is the nephew of Sir Angus; he succeeded to the titles last year when his father passed away. In addition, the wife of the earl of Airlie at that time (12th) was lady of the Bedchamber to the queen - so I suppose she discussed it with the family before hand.
 
Somebody said:
I just noticed that among the titles of the Earl of Airlie, is the following title: Lord Ogilvy of Alith and Lintrathen, co. Forfar (the other title is Lord Ogilvy of Airlie).

Does anyone know what 'co.' stands for in this case - as it is the same location that Edward was made an earl of by his mother. You would think there might be other places in Scotland that were not yet attached to another family's titles that he could have been made an earl of.
Click to expand...

Lintrathen is a parish in the county of Forfar, so I assume that's what 'co' stands for here.

 
Somebody said:
I just noticed that among the titles of the Earl of Airlie, is the following title: Lord Ogilvy of Alith and Lintrathen, co. Forfar (the other title is Lord Ogilvy of Airlie).

Does anyone know what 'co.' stands for in this case - as it is the same location that Edward was made an earl of by his mother. You would think there might be other places in Scotland that were not yet attached to another family's titles that he could have been made an earl of.

The current earl (13th) is the nephew of Sir Angus; he succeeded to the titles last year when his father passed away. In addition, the wife of the earl of Airlie at that time (12th) was lady of the Bedchamber to the queen - so I suppose she discussed it with the family before hand.
Click to expand...

GondorHasNoPants is correct; "co." is an abbreviation of "county" and merely indicates that the place named in the title is located in that county, not that the family lays claim to the entire county. :flowers:

Formally, all peerage titles include this long territorial designation, though the territorial designations of peerages are generally omitted in regular usage (unless it is necessary to use them to avoid confusion with another peer's similar title). The custom is a vestige of the olden days when the place names in the title referred to the actual location of the family's estates.

"All peerage titles have a territorial basis, as it were. That is to say, that a man is created "BARON BLANK, of Blanktown in the County of Blankshire". The practice dates back to feudal times, when the feudal dignity of a baron was inseparable from the possession of the lands of the barony itself. In other words, to be tenant-in-chief of the King (the legal position of all peers in those days) was an essential pre-requisite to receiving a writ of summons to attend the King in the Great Council of the Realm."



EssexRoyal said:
In a same sex marriage in the UK there is no convention on who takes which surname and often there is no change. For instance when I married my same sex partner we kept our respective surnames. However, some of our friends making same-sex marriages have just double-barrelled their surnames - so Mr Jones and Mr Smith both became Mr and Mr Jones-Smith. A divorced female friend of ours reverted to her maiden surname when she married her wife and then took her wife's surname as her new surname. Whoever Sarah, Duchess of York married would result in her losing her title.

I have also noticed a trend in mixed couple marriage for the bride to keep her original surname. When recently visiting Harewood House I noticed that the current countess uses the name of Diane Howse, Countess of Harewood rather than Diane Lascelles, Countess of Harewood.
Click to expand...

Thank you; interesting information about the modernization of surname usage among married couples. Where did you find confirmation that divorced women who remarry to women lose the courtesy titles from their ex-husbands?
 
Last edited:
When the King Charles and Queen Camilla married in 2005, did Camilla use Shand as her last name during her vows or Parker-Bowles?
 
  • Like
Reactions: SLV
SLV said:
When the King Charles and Queen Camilla married in 2005, did Camilla use Shand as her last name during her vows or Parker-Bowles?
Click to expand...
Her legal name was Parker-Bowles, so that is what she used in official and non-official situations. Not sure whether surnames are included in the vows.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SLV
Somebody said:
Her legal name was Parker-Bowles, so that is what she used in official and non-official situations. Not sure whether surnames are included in the vows.
Click to expand...
I believe she was listed in her marriage certificate to then Prince Charles as "Camilla Rosemary Parker Bowles". The groom was named as "His Royal Highness Prince Charles Philip Arthur George, The Prince of Wales".
 
  • Like
Reactions: SLV
Hypothetical question: If the monarchy was abolished during the time of the current king, but the British aristocratic system (since it's independent) remained, what would be the titles of those titled in the line of succession be?

I would presume that Andrew, Edward, Harry, Richard, Edward Kent, and Alexandra would keep their aristocratic titles (as the Dukes of York, Edinburgh, Sussex, Gloucester, and Kent, and the Honourable Lady Ogilvy). There would be no change for James or Louise as they never used their princely titles (so they would remain Earl of Wessex as a courtesy and Lady Louise). Archie, Lilibet, Beatrice, and Eugenie would lose their princely titles, with the former two more than likely reverting to the Mountbatten-Windsor (since their aristocratic courtesy titles were never used) and the latter two continuing to use their married names, just without their princely titles (Mrs. Edoardo Mapelli-Mozzi and Mrs. Jack Brooksbank).

But Anne and Michael only have princely titles. Would they become the Lady Laurence and Lord Michael Windsor?

Even if the princely titles were removed, Charles would still be the Duke of Lancaster, and William the Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge. Would George's courtesy title be Duke of Rothesay or, as that title is equivalent to Duke of Cornwall, Earl of Carrick or Earl of Strathearn, or even Earl of Chester given is murky position of being an aristocratic title giving alongside a princely on?

Of course, this hypothetical situation assumes that Charles and William don't lose access to the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall. In that scenario, William would return to being Duke of Cambridge, and George would probably use Earl of Strathearn as a courtesy. But what would Charles be called in the UK in this scenario?

With or without the Duchy of Cornwall, Charlotte and Louis would be Lady Charlotte and Lord Louis.

Finally, this hypothetical situation only applies to the dissolution of the British throne, not those in the Commonwealth realms. Even if the former happened, would Charles still be referred to as King of Canada, Australia, etc, or would he still hold the title of King of the United Kingdom in pretense?
 
The Duke of Rothesay title is William most senior title in Scotland so George wouldn't use that.

I would imagine he would use the courtesy title Earl of Chester as that is the subsidiary title of his father's most senior title - Prince of Wales and Earl of Carrick in Scotland as that is the most senior subsidiary title of Duke of Rothesay for William in Scotland.

If the title Duke of Lancaster were removed then Charles would have no title at all while William would still have Duke of Cambridge.

As far as Australia is concerned Charles would remain Charles III until we voted, in a referendum to remove him. I am not sure how the other realms would have to go about removing him. I would imagine we would respect the wishes of the British people and no longer refer to him as King of the UK but he rarely gets anything more than The King or Charles III anyway so it would be a moot point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Marengo
Earl and Countess of St Andrews and Family News and Events 2, Dec 2024-
Replies
0
Views
591
Marengo
Marengo
Ista
HH Rahim Al-Hussaini Aga Khan V and Family
Replies
10
Views
1K
iceflower
iceflower
Marengo
Princess Sofia of Sweden Jewels 3: January 2025 -
Replies
0
Views
357
Marengo
Marengo
An Ard Ri
  • Sticky
King Philippe, Current Events, Part 4
Replies
3
Views
242
Adda
Adda
Marengo
King Philippe and Queen Mathilde, Current Events, Part 3, Dec 2024-
Replies
10
Views
1K
Adda
Adda

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom