Questions about British Styles and Titles 3: Aug 2023 -


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
However in every other monarchy married princesses now don’t become Mrs. (husband’s name).
As other posters explained, they get the title/style of their husbands (according to English common law) in addition to their own title/style of HRH Princess [given names] (per the LPs of 1917).

In the UK, the wife of Mr. Jack Brooksbank is styled Mrs. Jack Brooksbank. Hence, HRH Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank.

The wife of the The Hon Sir Angus Ogilvy is styled The Hon Lady Olgivy (that is a tricky one, because it combines two rules!). Hence, HRH Princess Alexandra, The Hon Lady Ogilvy.

The wife of the Earl of Snowdon is the Countess of Snowdon. Hence HRH Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon.

By the way, the sisters of King Harald V and King Carl XVI Gustaf (except Princess Birgitta, who married a foreign royal) were styled in a similar fashion, but they are not HRHs under Norwegian or Swedish rules (and were/are not even in the line of succession actually).
 
When Anne’s mother became queen she had the same title as an unmarried son of a monarch. However when she married she became Mrs Mark Phillips. In every other monarchy the princess now retains the title she was born with rather than becoming Mrs. (husband’s name).
She remained 'Her Royal Highness the princess Anne' and also added her husband's name - please don't pretend otherwise by ignoring her title. While I personally am not used to the British tradition of using the husband's first name and find it a bit cringy, if that's the custom in a country, it makes sense for the royals to go along with that tradition.

When living in different countries, I noticed that views on surnames often depend a lot on the tradition you are used to/grew up with as well as views of people around you and decisions they made. Many women in countries where the tradition has always been to either take their husband's name or hyphenate (orders differ depending on the country) are happy to carry their husband's name - versus continuing to (solely) use their father's name.

However, I don't think we will get any further with this discussion as it seems that in your perspective only one solution for all circumstances seems to suffice, so I will bow out at least for now to avoid repeating myself.
 
By the way, the sisters of King Harald V and King Carl XVI Gustaf (except Princess Birgitta, who married a foreign royal) were styled in a similar fashion, but they are not HRHs under Norwegian or Swedish rules (and were/are not even in the line of succession actually).
Yes, this was amended for Carl Gustaf’s daughters and Princess Märtha Louise.

She remained 'Her Royal Highness the princess Anne' and also added her husband's name - please don't pretend otherwise by ignoring her title. While I personally am not used to the British tradition of using the husband's first name and find it a bit cringy, if that's the custom in a country, it makes sense for the royals to go along with that tradition.

When living in different countries, I noticed that views on surnames often depend a lot on the tradition you are used to/grew up with as well as views of people around you and decisions they made. Many women in countries where the tradition has always been to either take their husband's name or hyphenate (orders differ depending on the country) are happy to carry their husband's name - versus continuing to (solely) use their father's name.

However, I don't think we will get any further with this discussion as it seems that in your perspective only one solution for all circumstances seems to suffice, so I will bow out at least for now to avoid repeating myself.
At that point she had no “of” designation. Had she had one at the time of her marriage she would have lost it. Don’t see why they can’t keep the “of” designation followed by Mrs (husband’s name), Mrs. van Vollenhoven is part of the title of Princess Margriet of the Netherlands but she was never stripped of the “of the Netherlands.”
 
Yes, this was amended for Carl Gustaf’s daughters and Princess Märtha Louise.


At that point she had no “of” designation. Had she had one at the time of her marriage she would have lost it. Don’t see why they can’t keep the “of” designation followed by Mrs (husband’s name), Mrs. van Vollenhoven is part of the title of Princess Margriet of the Netherlands but she was never stripped of the “of the Netherlands.”
The use of The in front of the title Prince or Princess indicates that the person is the child of the Sovereign. ALL British Princes and Princess are 'of the UK' and none of them use it.

They use 'The' to indicate child of a Sovereign (that isn't lost when the Sovereign dies so The Princess Margaret remained that throughout her sister's reign and Anne is still The Princess Anne if she was to use that designation during her brother's and maybe her nephew's reign. Andrew and Edward were born as The Prince Andrew and The Prince Edward - only changing when they became peers of the realm on marriage. Anne remained The Princess Anne, Mrs Mark Phillips during her marriage, having dropped the 'of Edinburgh, when her mother ascended the throne as she then took her title from her mother and not her father. She changed again to The Princess Royal and thus dropped the use of The Princess Anne.

So Anne went from:

HRH Princess Anne of Edinburgh
HRH The Princess Anne
HRH The Princess Anne, Mrs Mark Phillips
HRH The Princess Royal

When Anne’s mother became queen she had the same title as an unmarried son of a monarch. However when she married she became Mrs Mark Phillips. In every other monarchy the princess now retains the title she was born with rather than becoming Mrs. (husband’s name).


However in every other monarchy married princesses now don’t become Mrs. (husband’s name).

If Prince Michael of Kent retained the “of Kent” when he married than a princess should be able to as well.
They do - they just stop using it for ease and nothing else. Alexandra actually was often still called Princess Alexandra of Kent, Mrs Angus Ogilvy for a number of years after her marriage but by the time Anne married the descision was made to streamline the title - keep the title Princess and add the husband's name/title. It was simply a private family decision.
 
Alexandra actually was often still called Princess Alexandra of Kent, Mrs Angus Ogilvy for a number of years after her marriage

In the Gazette (the UK's official public record), Alexandra has never been called "of Kent" after marrying. Do you have examples of occasions when she was called that, officially, after marriage? Of course, I understand that the media may have continued calling her by that name despite what Buckingham Palace dictated, just as the media continue to refer to Beatrice and Eugenie as "of York" even though the Palace no longer calls them such.

There was one married princess who was permitted to officially use her territorial designation after marriage, namely Edward VII's daughter Princess Louise of Wales.

The use of The in front of the title Prince or Princess indicates that the person is the child of the Sovereign.

Adding to what Iluvbertie explained, this custom was created by Queen Elizabeth II. Earlier monarchs used "The"/"the" for princes and princesses who were not children of sovereigns; this can be proven by searching the Gazette.

Mrs. van Vollenhoven is part of the title of Princess Margriet of the Netherlands but she was never stripped of the “of the Netherlands.”

Neither Margriet nor her sisters Beatrix or Christina have ever added their husbands' surnames. :) The UK and Denmark are the only kingdoms in Europe where princesses of the blood are forced to drop part of their maiden name/title (or whatever one would describe "of York" as) on marriage and replace it with their husband's surname:

Madeleine of Sweden retained the surname Bernadotte and continues to use it for most purposes; she never adopted her husband's name legally and uses it only for private socializing.
Märtha Louise of Norway has never adopted or used her husbands' names.
Margriet and Christina of the Netherlands retained the [title and] surname "[Princess] of Orange-Nassau" and never adopted their husbands' surnames.
Maria Laura of Belgium retained the [title and] surname "[Archduchess] of Austria-Este (Habsbourg-Lorraine)" (the parentheses form part of her legal surname) and continued to use the unofficial surname "of Belgium" and has not used her husband's surname.
Elena and Cristina of Spain retained the surname "of Borbón" and never adopted or used their husbands' surnames.

She remained 'Her Royal Highness the princess Anne' and also added her husband's name - please don't pretend otherwise by ignoring her title. While I personally am not used to the British tradition of using the husband's first name and find it a bit cringy, if that's the custom in a country, it makes sense for the royals to go along with that tradition.

When living in different countries, I noticed that views on surnames often depend a lot on the tradition you are used to/grew up with as well as views of people around you and decisions they made. Many women in countries where the tradition has always been to either take their husband's name or hyphenate (orders differ depending on the country) are happy to carry their husband's name - versus continuing to (solely) use their father's name.

However, I don't think we will get any further with this discussion as it seems that in your perspective only one solution for all circumstances seems to suffice, so I will bow out at least for now to avoid repeating myself.

It is the British monarchy which insists on "one solution for all circumstances". As you say, most British women seem happy to carry their husbands' names, but the majority of those women probably were free to choose which name to carry when married, and were not forced into the name change.

British princesses may theoretically have a choice according to the law, but in practice, any choice other than giving up their maiden name and using their husband's surname is not acknowledged or respected by the Sovereign or the Palace. Beatrice and Eugenie have been very consistent in not using their husbands' surnames; since marriage they have referred to themselves as Princess Beatrice, Princess Eugenie, Princess Eugenie of York, Beatrice York and Eugenie York in their professional and private charitable endeavors - without ever adding "Mrs. Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi" or "Mrs. Jack Brooksbank". In spite of the choices they have made when given a choice, all communications issued by the late Queen, the King, and Buckingham Palace post-marriage refer to them as Princess Beatrice, Mrs. Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi and Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank.

If Princess Charlotte of Wales in the future truly wants to become Princess Charlotte, Mrs. John Smith, that is fine by me; what I dislike is that (unless reforms are made) the name change will be automatically imposed on her if and when she marries a man, while it will not be imposed on her brother Louis if and when he marries.

I am not convinced that it is still the "custom" in Britain for women to use their husband's first name. While the "Mrs. John Smith" format continues to be employed in, for instance, the Telegraph's birth announcements, I frankly have never heard of, say, the opposition party leader Kemi Badenoch calling herself Mrs. Hamish Badenoch.

She remained 'Her Royal Highness the princess Anne' and also added her husband's name - please don't pretend otherwise by ignoring her title.

I'm sure meeralakshmi and most if not all readers of this thread understand that Anne remained a Princess after marriage. :flowers: British title practices seem to be the most understood by royal watchers in the Anglophone world - to the point where those practices are often incorrectly ascribed to non-British royal families. The use of abbreviations when writing about well-known concepts (with the expectation that most readers will be familiar with them) is not the same as pretending or ignoring them. Nonetheless, as you reminded me earlier in this thread, I acknowledge it is best to write things out in full so that there can be no misunderstanding.
 
Neither Margriet nor her sisters Beatrix or Christina have ever added their husbands' surnames. :) The UK and Denmark are the only kingdoms in Europe where princesses of the blood are forced to drop part of their maiden name/title (or whatever one would describe "of York" as) on marriage and replace it with their husband's surname:
According to Wikipedia Margriet’s full title is HRH Princess Margriet of the Netherlands, Princess of Orange-Nassau, Princess of Lippe-Biesterfeld, Mrs. van Vollenhoven. Where is it stated that Danish princesses who marry commoners have to replace the “of Denmark” with Mrs. (husband’s surname)?

Elena and Cristina of Spain retained the surname "of Borbón" and never adopted or used their husbands' surnames.
In Spain women don’t take their husbands’ surnames and kids get the surnames of both parents.
 
Where is it stated that Danish princesses who marry commoners have to replace the “of Denmark” with Mrs. (husband’s surname)?
Historically Princess Dagmar, the one Danish princess to marry a commoner, became Mrs Castenskiold after marriage. Also Princess Elisabeth never bothered to marry her long-term partner because she didn't want to loose her title.Looking forward I personally doubt that Princesses Isabella and Josephine will loose their titles if they marry.
 
Last edited:
Historically Princess Dagmar, the one Danish princess to marry a commoner, became Mrs Castenskiold after marriage. Also Princess Elisabeth never bothered to marry her long-term partner because she didn't want to loose her title.Looking forward I personally doubt that Princesses Isabella and Josephine will loose their titles if they marry.

The Castenskiold family is untitled nobility, not commoner. One can locate Dagmar's husband and descendants in Danmarks Adels Aarbog, the Danish equivalent of Burke's Peerage/Debrett's. At the time of ex-princess Dagmar's marriage (1922), even marriages to non-royal nobility were treated as unequal and thus entailed the loss of royal titles and Royal House membership (for both princesses and princes).

But yes, the Princess Elisabeth example wherein she knew the Queen would have demoted her to "Mrs. Hermansen" if she married is the reason I included Denmark as a monarchy where princesses are forced to lose their titles if they marry. By the time Elisabeth's partner died (1997) it was clearly no longer about marriages being unequal, as Queen Margrethe II had allowed her son Prince Joachim to marry a commoner (Alexandra Manley) but retain his titles and succession rights.
 
Historically Princess Dagmar, the one Danish princess to marry a commoner, became Mrs Castenskiold after marriage. Also Princess Elisabeth never bothered to marry her long-term partner because she didn't want to loose her title.Looking forward I personally doubt that Princesses Isabella and Josephine will loose their titles if they marry.
Yeah I’m sure a reform has been or will be made as it was for the daughters of Carl XVI Gustaf and Princess Märtha Louise of Norway. Princess Benedikte’s husband was offered the title of prince of Denmark which he declined, the same may be done for the spouses of Isabella and Josephine.

The Castenskiold family is untitled nobility, not commoner. One can locate Dagmar's husband and descendants in Danmarks Adels Aarbog, the Danish equivalent of Burke's Peerage/Debrett's. At the time of ex-princess Dagmar's marriage (1922), even marriages to non-royal nobility were treated as unequal and thus entailed the loss of royal titles and Royal House membership (for both princesses and princes).

But yes, the Princess Elisabeth example wherein she knew the Queen would have demoted her to "Mrs. Hermansen" if she married is the reason I included Denmark as a monarchy where princesses are forced to lose their titles if they marry. By the time Elisabeth's partner died (1997) it was clearly no longer about marriages being unequal, as Queen Margrethe II had allowed her son Prince Joachim to marry a commoner (Alexandra Manley) but retain his titles and succession rights.
Did Dagmar lose her princess title or did she just become Princess Dagmar, Mrs. Castenskjold?
 
Indeed, she became Mrs. Dagmar Castenskiold.

According to Wikipedia Margriet’s full title is HRH Princess Margriet of the Netherlands, Princess of Orange-Nassau, Princess of Lippe-Biesterfeld, Mrs. van Vollenhoven.

Unfortunately, I have found Wikipedia to be unreliable in the extreme in regards to titles (and many other royal-connected matters). Many of its editors appear to impose current British practices (such as the Princess Firstname, Mrs. Husband'sname style) on foreign and historical royalty, without respect for the differences in custom across countries and time periods.

In regards to Princess Margriet, see below for the Dutch Royal House's presentation of the current titles and surnames of the various members of the Royal House and Family; only birth titles and surnames are attributed to Princess Beatrix's younger sisters:

Prinses Beatrix en haar zussen

Voor de kinderen van Koningin Juliana en Prins Bernhard (Prinses Beatrix, Prinses Irene, Prinses Margriet en Prinses Christina) is vastgesteld dat zij bij hun geboorte de titels 'Prinses der Nederlanden, Prinses van Oranje-Nassau, Prinses van Lippe-Biesterfeld' kregen. Prinses Beatrix voert sinds haar aftreden als koningin weer de titel 'Prinses der Nederlanden', zoals haar moeder en grootmoeder ook deden.

Translation

Princess Beatrix and her sisters

For the children of Queen Juliana and Prince Bernhard (Princess Beatrix, Princess Irene, Princess Margriet and Princess Christina) it was decreed that they received the titles 'Princess of the Netherlands, Princess of Orange-Nassau, Princess of Lippe-Biesterfeld' from birth. Princess Beatrix bears the title 'Princess of the Netherlands' since her abdication as queen, as her mother and grandmother did.


I once asked a Dutch member of this forum whether the blood princesses had used their husbands' surnames in the past; he could not remember a time when they did.

 
The UK is the only current European monarchy that still downgrades princesses’ titles if they marry morganatically.

There are no morganatic marriages in British law. Did you mean if they marry "unequally"?

What is your definition of a morganatic marriage? If one subscribes to a popular definition of a morganatic marriage, i.e., a marriage in which the higher-ranking spouse preserves their rank but the marriage does not elevate the rank of the lower-ranking spouse, then under British law every marriage between a woman of higher rank and a man of lower rank is morganatic.

For example, the Princess Royal retained her royal titles and precedence when she married commoner Timothy Laurence, but Timothy did not acquire any titles nor was he elevated in the order of precedence through marrying her.

The “of” designation is removed however; Alexandra, Beatrice, and Eugenie all lost theirs.

But the "of" designation has nothing to do with their rank. It is actually only a customary proxy for their maiden "family name",

How is that a demotion? Anne was no longer 'of Edinburgh' when her mother became queen.

I understand your arguments and don't disagree, but in practice, a "royal" name is probably perceived by the general public as more prestigious than the surnames of most non-royal spouses, even though names are technically unranked. The names "Anne Windsor", "Eugenie York" or "Meghan Sussex" would likely turn more heads than "Anne Laurence", "Eugenie Brooksbank" or "Meghan Markle".

But the "of" designation has nothing to do with their rank. It is actually only a customary proxy for their maiden "family name", probably following the French model where the "enfants de France" had the "last name" (or designation) "de France", but the "petits enfants de France", who were in the same position as Beatrice and Eugenie, used the territorial designation of their father's peerage as last name, e.g. "d'Artois", "d'Orléans", etc.

If the British royal family had followed the customs of the Kingdom of France, though, then married princesses would have ceased using their birth titles entirely when they married beneath their rank: Alexandra for example would have become The Hon. Mrs. Angus Ogilvy rather than HRH Princess Alexandra, the Hon. Mrs. Angus Ogilvy on marriage, in that case.

The Princess X, Mrs. YZ custom introduced by Queen Elizabeth II seems most reminiscent of the Swedish and Norwegian styling of princesses who married "unequal" men (a standard in those monarchies at the time) in the 1950s-1970s, which you also mentioned. However, Queen Elizabeth II does not seem like she would have been close to the then Kings of Norway or Sweden, so it would be interesting to know from where she received the idea.
 
What is your definition of a morganatic marriage? If one subscribes to a popular definition of a morganatic marriage, i.e., a marriage in which the higher-ranking spouse preserves their rank but the marriage does not elevate the rank of the lower-ranking spouse, then under British law every marriage between a woman of higher rank and a man of lower rank is morganatic.

For example, the Princess Royal retained her royal titles and precedence when she married commoner Timothy Laurence, but Timothy did not acquire any titles nor was he elevated in the order of precedence through marrying her.
While the official definition of a morganatic marriage is one where the lower-ranked spouse and children can’t use the higher-ranked spouse’s title it seems like the term has been used synonymously with any unequal marriage. And while you’re right that that definition means that any marriage between a higher-ranked woman and a lower-ranked man in the UK is morganatic I can imagine that some would argue that they aren’t because there isn’t any circumstance in the UK when a man can use his wife’s title. However in Spain where a man almost always can there have been marriages between princesses and lower-ranked men that would fit the official definition of morganatic.
The Princess X, Mrs. YZ custom introduced by Queen Elizabeth II seems most reminiscent of the Swedish and Norwegian styling of princesses who married "unequal" men (a standard in those monarchies at the time) in the 1950s-1970s, which you also mentioned. However, Queen Elizabeth II does not seem like she would have been close to the then Kings of Norway or Sweden, so it would be interesting to know from where she received the idea.
I don’t know if it can be said that she introduced it when there were no marriages between princesses and commoners before her reign but I could be wrong.
 
I don’t know if it can be said that she introduced it when there were no marriages between princesses and commoners before her reign but I could be wrong.
Princesses Patricia (1919), Maud (1923) and Alexandra (1913. She was a duchess in her own right) all relinquished (or at least stopped using) their own royal titles after getting married. One of them married a commoner, one married a future peer and one married a prince.

The Castenskiold family is untitled nobility, not commoner. One can locate Dagmar's husband and descendants in Danmarks Adels Aarbog, the Danish equivalent of Burke's Peerage/Debrett's.
Thank you, I meant commoner as in non-royal. The subject of the history and the status of the Danish nobility is one that I'm much familiar with.
 
Thank you, I meant commoner as in non-royal. The subject of the history and the status of the Danish nobility is one that I'm much familiar with.

Understood, and as you know I appreciate your well-informed contributions, in particular on the Scandinavian countries. Most royal watchers use "commoner" to mean "neither noble nor royal", and the misconception about Jørgen Castenskiold's status is one I've seen repeated by various people (possibly because Anglocentric royal watchers are less familiar with the concept of untitled nobility), so I think it was worth a clarification for most readers who are not as knowledgeable as you are.
 
Princesses Patricia (1919), Maud (1923) and Alexandra (1913. She was a duchess in her own right) all relinquished (or at least stopped using) their own royal titles after getting married. One of them married a commoner, one married a future peer and one married a prince.
Patricia indeed went from a princess to a lady when she married a commoner. Maud chose to become Lady Maud Carnegie when she married but legally remained a princess. Alexandra was HH Princess Alexandra, Duchess of Fife when she married Prince Arthur and automatically became HRH Princess Arthur of Connaught, Duchess of Fife after marrying him. As women who marry British royal/noble men automatically receive their husbands’ titles it makes sense that a British princess’ princess title held in her own right is replaced with the female equivalent of her husband’s when she marries a British prince.

If Mark Phillips had accepted the earldom I would assume that Anne would have lost her countess title when she remarried to Tim. I wonder if Tim would have been offered an earldom then.
 
I doubt it very much. The times had changed by the union with Tim. They were already on the move when Anne married Mark Phillips. There was no sense of outrage among the British public for example at the Phillips’ not wanting titles for the children, just a bit of faint surprise.
If Anne had married Mark twenty five years before there might well have been expectations that a title would be bestowed. Look at the Snowdens.
 
The Princess X, Mrs. YZ custom introduced by Queen Elizabeth II seems most reminiscent of the Swedish and Norwegian styling of princesses who married "unequal" men (a standard in those monarchies at the time) in the 1950s-1970s, which you also mentioned. However, Queen Elizabeth II does not seem like she would have been close to the then Kings of Norway or Sweden, so it would be interesting to know from where she received the idea.
I don’t see the Princess X, Mrs YZ title as an issue. I doubt if Beatrice or Eugenie had that much of an issue with it their late grandmother would have imposed it upon them, after all she allowed her aunt by marriage to be title Princess Alice even though she wasn’t a Princess by birth. I also think judging based on what they use professionally is tricky- I know a number of woman who at work keep their own name as they have built a reputation with it and are widely known by it professionally but in private use their husbands surname.
A side note: Elizabeth II was related closely to the King of Norway and Anne was made Haakon’s godmother when he was born in 1973. I suspect she probably knew them enough to know that was how they titled Princesses who married.
 
Last edited:
I doubt if Beatrice or Eugenie had that much of an issue with it their late grandmother would have imposed it upon them, after all she allowed her aunt by marriage to be title Princess Alice even though she wasn’t a Princess by birth.
When Prince Edward, Duke of Kent married, his mother began using the title of Princess Marina she received at birth (she was born Princess Marina of Greece and Denmark) to distinguish herself from her DIL. Though she wasn’t born a princess Alice asked for the same title when her husband died and Elizabeth agreed.
 
The Princess X, Mrs. YZ custom introduced by Queen Elizabeth II seems most reminiscent of the Swedish and Norwegian styling of princesses who married "unequal" men (a standard in those monarchies at the time) in the 1950s-1970s, which you also mentioned. However, Queen Elizabeth II does not seem like she would have been close to the then Kings of Norway or Sweden, so it would be interesting to know from where she received the idea.
It appears that she did introduce it actually as Margaret was never Mrs Antony Armstrong-Jones; she remained HRH The Princess Margaret until her husband was granted an earldom that she retained after her divorce due to never remarrying.
A side note: Elizabeth II was related closely to the King of Norway and Anne was made Haakon’s godmother when he was born in 1973. I suspect she probably knew them enough to know that was how they titled Princesses who married.
It’s apparently all but stated that Elizabeth named Charles after her great-uncle Haakon who was born Prince Carl (Charles) of Denmark. She called him Uncle Charles.
 
I was going down a rabbit hole about British titles, and I couldn't find the official Buckingham announcement about Andrew not being able to use his HRH. I found the announcement of him stepping down after Epstein's suicide and the one about him losing his ceremonial military roles and royal patronages, but the closest I could find was a royal source telling the BBC that he wouldn't. Now, I 100% believe that the BBC would thoroughly vet their sources and that the information is trustworthy, but it seems...unwise to have that as a presumably spoken agreement, especially given his alleged crimes.

But maybe I just missed it. Does anyone have a link to the Buckingham statement limiting Andrew's use of his HRH?
 
I don’t think it was ever stated in writing just added on briefing by BP after the statement saying he was handing back his patronages to the Queen.

Like the Sussex’s it is a moot point really as whatever “agreement” they all hold their titles by law and have not had then officially removed so still hold them.
 
However, Queen Elizabeth II does not seem like she would have been close to the then Kings of Norway or Sweden, so it would be interesting to know from where she received the idea.
The King of Norway who introduced the style (Haakon VII) was her father’s “Uncle Charlie” and spent the war in the UK along with the subsequent king (Olav V), and he was such a great family favorite that according to the Norwegian royal court, Charles III was named after his godfather. Not to mention, her cousin Olav continued coming to the UK every year until he was an old, old man (and was also a great friend of the Queen Mother); much the same way Harald and Sonja do now. I think Elizabeth was close to them.
 
While the official definition of a morganatic marriage is one where the lower-ranked spouse and children can’t use the higher-ranked spouse’s title it seems like the term has been used synonymously with any unequal marriage.
The marriage of Edward and Wallis fit the official definition of a morganatic marriage since Wallis was only permitted to use the style of Her Grace, not her husband’s style of HRH.
 
The marriage of Edward and Wallis fit the official definition of a morganatic marriage since Wallis was only permitted to use the style of Her Grace, not her husband’s style of HRH.
No, she was permitted to call herself the Duchess of Windsor (and if they’d somehow had children there might have been another Duke). A morganatic spouse needs their own title (if any) by definition. Like when her husband was exploring marrying her and remaining on the throne with the idea that she wouldn’t be Queen.

Didn’t work because morganatic is not a British custom.
 
No, she was permitted to call herself the Duchess of Windsor (and if they’d somehow had children there might have been another Duke). A morganatic spouse needs their own title (if any) by definition. Like when her husband was exploring marrying her and remaining on the throne with the idea that she wouldn’t be Queen.

Didn’t work because morganatic is not a British custom.
She wasn’t allowed to be Princess Edward as a royal duchess would though (all the royal duchesses have the title of Princess (husband’s name) but don’t use it because they can just put their own name before Duchess of X).
 
A side note: Elizabeth II was related closely to the King of Norway and Anne was made Haakon’s godmother when he was born in 1973. I suspect she probably knew them enough to know that was how they titled Princesses who married.

It’s apparently all but stated that Elizabeth named Charles after her great-uncle Haakon who was born Prince Carl (Charles) of Denmark. She called him Uncle Charles.

The King of Norway who introduced the style (Haakon VII) was her father’s “Uncle Charlie” and spent the war in the UK along with the subsequent king (Olav V), and he was such a great family favorite that according to the Norwegian royal court, Charles III was named after his godfather. Not to mention, her cousin Olav continued coming to the UK every year until he was an old, old man (and was also a great friend of the Queen Mother); much the same way Harald and Sonja do now. I think Elizabeth was close to them.

Interesting, thank you. Then the possibility that Elizabeth II’s introduction of the “Princess X, Mrs. Y” form was inspired by its inventor, King Haakon VII of Norway, is not farfetched after all.

If that was the case, I wonder why she styled her daughter and granddaughters as e.g. “The Princess Anne, Mrs. Mark Phillips” rather than “The Princess Anne, Mrs. Phillips”. The Norwegian – and Swedish – princesses whose marriages were declared unequal in the 1950s through 1970s became “Princess Ragnhild, Mrs. Ferner” or “Princess Margaretha, Mrs. Ambler”. Their husband’s given name was not included.

Now that I think of it, the inclusion of “Mark/Edoardo/Jack” violated even British conventions. By the rules of British etiquette from the 19th century, the most senior wife of a family used only her husband’s surname. That is to say, in a whole family of commoners, the wife of the patriarch used the style “Mrs. Smith”. Only her sons’ and grandsons’ wives needed to use “Mrs. Charles Smith”, “Mrs. Andrew Smith”, etc. to distinguish themselves from her.

By the same reasoning, when a viscount or baron’s daughter who is married to a commoner uses her title of “The Honourable”, traditional etiquette decrees that she is styled “The Honourable Mrs. Shand”, not “The Honourable Mrs. Bruce Shand”. Her “The Honourable” elevates her above, and distinguishes her from, all the untitled wives of the Shand family, so she does not use her husband’s surname.


So even by Anglocentric, ultratraditionalist standards, Anne, Beatrice and Eugenie being princesses meant that if they were going to be called Mrs. anything, it should have been “Mrs. Phillips”, not “Mrs. Mark Phillips”.

Note: “Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Mrs. Angus Ogilvy” is a different matter, because including the “Angus” served the purpose of clarifying that the “Honourable” belonged to Angus, not to Alexandra.
 
Interesting, thank you. Then the possibility that Elizabeth II’s introduction of the “Princess X, Mrs. Y” form was inspired by its inventor, King Haakon VII of Norway, is not farfetched after all.

If that was the case, I wonder why she styled her daughter and granddaughters as e.g. “The Princess Anne, Mrs. Mark Phillips” rather than “The Princess Anne, Mrs. Phillips”. The Norwegian – and Swedish – princesses whose marriages were declared unequal in the 1950s through 1970s became “Princess Ragnhild, Mrs. Ferner” or “Princess Margaretha, Mrs. Ambler”. Their husband’s given name was not included.

Now that I think of it, the inclusion of “Mark/Edoardo/Jack” violated even British conventions. By the rules of British etiquette from the 19th century, the most senior wife of a family used only her husband’s surname. That is to say, in a whole family of commoners, the wife of the patriarch used the style “Mrs. Smith”. Only her sons’ and grandsons’ wives needed to use “Mrs. Charles Smith”, “Mrs. Andrew Smith”, etc. to distinguish themselves from her.

By the same reasoning, when a viscount or baron’s daughter who is married to a commoner uses her title of “The Honourable”, traditional etiquette decrees that she is styled “The Honourable Mrs. Shand”, not “The Honourable Mrs. Bruce Shand”. Her “The Honourable” elevates her above, and distinguishes her from, all the untitled wives of the Shand family, so she does not use her husband’s surname.


So even by Anglocentric, ultratraditionalist standards, Anne, Beatrice and Eugenie being princesses meant that if they were going to be called Mrs. anything, it should have been “Mrs. Phillips”, not “Mrs. Mark Phillips”.

Note: “Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Mrs. Angus Ogilvy” is a different matter, because including the “Angus” served the purpose of clarifying that the “Honourable” belonged to Angus, not to Alexandra.
Probably because of the British tradition of married women taking on their husbands' first and last names (though I didn't realize that isn't necessarily the case when a titled woman marries an untitled man).
 
If that was the case, I wonder why she styled her daughter and granddaughters as e.g. “The Princess Anne, Mrs. Mark Phillips” rather than “The Princess Anne, Mrs. Phillips”. The Norwegian – and Swedish – princesses whose marriages were declared unequal in the 1950s through 1970s became “Princess Ragnhild, Mrs. Ferner” or “Princess Margaretha, Mrs. Ambler”. Their husband’s given name was not included.

Now that I think of it, the inclusion of “Mark/Edoardo/Jack” violated even British conventions. By the rules of British etiquette from the 19th century, the most senior wife of a family used only her husband’s surname. That is to say, in a whole family of commoners, the wife of the patriarch used the style “Mrs. Smith”. Only her sons’ and grandsons’ wives needed to use “Mrs. Charles Smith”, “Mrs. Andrew Smith”, etc. to distinguish themselves from her.
I think part of this discussion has already occurred and at least one of the Scandinavian members (maybe @JR76?) will be able to tell you why husbands’ first names are/were not used in titles there (their occupations used to be), and it has nothing to do with a lack of patriarchy.

British etiquette in the 1800’s may have called for “wife of patriarch”/“eldest unmarried daughter” to be “Mrs. or Miss Smith”, all others to use distinguishing first names, but by the time the titles were being adjusted, simple convention was Mrs. Husband’s Full Name, good enough for everyone without a title.

Why it has never continued to adjust with the times and why Charles III is not making it a high-priority reform project is something we simply don’t know.
 
I think part of this discussion has already occurred and at least one of the Scandinavian members (maybe @JR76?) will be able to tell you why husbands’ first names are/were not used in titles there (their occupations used to be), and it has nothing to do with a lack of patriarchy.
[…]
Why it has never continued to adjust with the times and why Charles III is not making it a high-priority reform project is something we simply don’t know.

I don't think there needs to be a particular reason why Scandinavian patriarchal naming customs differ from British patriarchal naming customs: different countries, different languages. And I don’t think it would take a high-priority reform project to adjust it, but that wasn’t the subject of my post. :flowers:

I was rather wondering why Elizabeth II seemingly didn’t follow British or Scandinavian custom when it came to including the husband’s first name in the possibly Scandinavian-inspired style that she introduced to the British royal family.

British etiquette in the 1800’s may have called for “wife of patriarch”/“eldest unmarried daughter” to be “Mrs. or Miss Smith”, all others to use distinguishing first names, but by the time the titles were being adjusted, simple convention was Mrs. Husband’s Full Name, good enough for everyone without a title.

Are you sure? I don’t have a citation, but I have seen the “patriarch and wife are Mr. and Mrs. Smith, eldest unmarried daughter is Miss Smith, all others use distinguishing first names” rule in at least one etiquette reference written in the later 20th century.
 
Back
Top Bottom