Questions about British Styles and Titles 3: Aug 2023 -

[Curryong]

Frankly I can’t see it. Perhaps Beatrice might agree but Eugenie, no. And in ten to fifteen years the two York princesses will be in their mid to late 40s. British commentators and others have commented on the ageing Royal family, so the impression is that, image-wise at least, it’s youth that’s needed.

If so then Charlotte and Louis may be brought in. But that will probably only be after George begins fulltime royal duties, which might not be until his late 20s. And what if the two younger ones don’t want a public life?

Less working royals is supposedly what Charles and William want and I would imagine that will eventually mean, monarch and consort and adult heir and spouse on fulltime royal duties and that’s it. If you start adding people then it could get to six to ten people again quite quickly.

 

[Iluvbertie]

He hasn't. It's been implied and reported in the media.

It does seem clear that there is a general desire for a smaller core of working royals, but it isn't as if William's cousins aren't called in to help on occasion - Zara & Mike, Peter, Beatrice & Eugenie all turned out to support William at last spring's Garden Party that he hosted. It won't surprise me if we see at least a couple of them in attendance again this year if William & Catherine host one.

And while Tim isn't a working royal he's certainly showing up in support of Anne at more & more events in the current reign. We'll have to see how things play out in coming years, though I'm really not sure I think anything is all that clear. For all we know, Beatrice & Eugenie may like things the way they are while their own children are young. Who knows what will happen in the next 10-15 years. We could be talking about Beatrice & Eugenie as working royals once their own children are older.

The late Queen always had Beatrice and Eugenie at one garden party a year. She even recorded their attendance in the CC - Charles didn't do that. He simply ignores them if they ever turn up e.g. Beatrice at this week's Elephant Family event - officially she wasn't there at all.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The Welsh Assembly believes that it had been told that it would be consulted and Charles simply ignored that. If given the vote it is probable that the Welsh Assembly will vote to abolish the title due to its recognistion of the conquest of Wales and the mistreatment of the Welsh by the English over centuries.

Do you have a source for these statements?

A representative poll of Welsh voters a few days after William was created Prince of Wales showed that 66% supported William being titled Prince of Wales, while 22% opposed it.

https://www.itv.com/news/wales/2022-09-26/majority-in-favour-of-prince-of-wales-title-for-william-but-not-an-investiture

So a female heir will be addressed as the Duke of Cornwall? That isn't right or fair when female heirs apparent in other countries get female titles.

I believe @Iluvbertie was saying that Parliament will not amend the Duchy of Cornwall’s charter. And if it is not amended, a female heir (still) will not possess the Duchy of Cornwall. While the heir is female, the Duchy of Cornwall will belong to the Crown.

 

[meeralakshmi]

I believe @Iluvbertie was saying that Parliament will not amend the Duchy of Cornwall’s charter. And if it is not amended, a female heir (still) will not possess the Duchy of Cornwall. While the heir is female, the Duchy of Cornwall will belong to the Crown.

Hopefully they will then, a female heir should get to hold the same titles as a male heir. It’ll be a while until we get another female heir so they have plenty of time to do so.

 

[meeralakshmi]

If there were to be another King James would he be James III or James VIII? The regnal number system for the UK is that if a name has been used in England and Scotland a UK monarch will follow whichever country had the higher regnal number. However the last two King James were James I/II in England and Ireland and James VI/VII in Scotland so would a future King James be James III in all of the UK except Scotland where he would be James VIII? The Scots felt that William IV should have been called William III, Edward VII and Edward VIII should have been called Edward I and Edward II, and Elizabeth II should have been called Elizabeth I in Scotland but that didn’t happen. They especially objected to Elizabeth II being called that in Scotland because Elizabeth I was only queen of England. In the movie Red, White & Royal Blue the king is James III, in the book the monarch is instead Queen Mary III.

I would assume James VIII, at that point the separate regnal numbers were because England and Scotland weren’t yet one country.

 

[Hallo girl]

I would assume James VIII, at that point the separate regnal numbers were because England and Scotland weren’t yet one country.

Scotland is a separate country that became part of Great Britain. James v1 of Scotland was the heir to the English throne. We are still a separate country that is part of the United kingdom.

 

[Alison H]

Technically, William will be William V of England, William IV of Scotland, and William III of Wales and Northern Ireland, but I don't think anyone's going to bother calling him "William the Fifth, Fourth and Third" . It sounds like someone reading out the racing results.

 

[meeralakshmi]

Scotland is a separate country that became part of Great Britain. James v1 of Scotland was the heir to the English throne. We are still a separate country that is part of the United kingdom.

That’s my bad, the UK is indeed made up of four separate countries. However since the regnal numbers of UK monarchs follow the country that had the higher one a future King James will be James VIII since there were seven King James of Scotland and only two of England.

 

[Hallo girl]

That’s my bad, the UK is indeed made up of four separate countries. However since the regnal numbers of UK monarchs follow the country that had the higher one a future King James will be James VIII since there were seven King James of Scotland and only two of England.

I am a proud Scot but equally proud Brit,

 

[Queen Claude]

Was Elizabeth II, Elizabeth I (or just Elizabeth) in Scotland?

 

[meeralakshmi]

Was Elizabeth II, Elizabeth I (or just Elizabeth) in Scotland?

No which the Scots were unhappy about. They also wanted William IV to be William III and Edward VII and VIII to be Edward I and II in Scotland.

 

[meeralakshmi]

The main reason Elizabeth wasn’t Princess of Wales in her own right was because at that point there could be no female heirs apparent, only heirs presumptive due to male-preference primogeniture. In all other monarchies a female heir holds the feminine form of the special title for the heir apparent if there is one (Duchess of Brabant, Princess of Orange, and Princess of Asturias). Despite Spain having male-preference primogeniture they allow a female heir presumptive to be Princess of Asturias.

Henry VIII of all people referred to Mary I as the Princess of Wales and granted her the rights and properties of the Prince of Wales though she was never officially created Princess of Wales. I can’t imagine that the UK today wants to be less progressive than Henry VIII.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Henry VIII of all people referred to Mary I as the Princess of Wales and granted her the rights and properties of the Prince of Wales though she was never officially created Princess of Wales. I can’t imagine that the UK today wants to be less progressive than Henry VIII.

The difference in the Letters Patent between Charles' creation and William's have made me wonder. See here:

Prince of Wales - Title, Succession and Wales

This seems relevant to this thread as well: No plans for Prince William to be invested as Prince of Wales, according to the BBC .

www.theroyalforums.com

 

[Iluvbertie]

Henry VIII of all people referred to Mary I as the Princess of Wales and granted her the rights and properties of the Prince of Wales though she was never officially created Princess of Wales. I can’t imagine that the UK today wants to be less progressive than Henry VIII.

Luckily he didn't as had he created her Princess of Wales in her own right then he would have had to strip her of those title when Edward was born - he was created Prince of Wales in his own right as the heir apparent.

 

[meeralakshmi]

Luckily he didn't as had he created her Princess of Wales in her own right then he would have had to strip her of those title when Edward was born - he was created Prince of Wales in his own right as the heir apparent.

Good point lol.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Luckily he didn't as had he created her Princess of Wales in her own right then he would have had to strip her of those title when Edward was born - he was created Prince of Wales in his own right as the heir apparent.

Titles, offices and properties passing from one person to another is normal in a hereditary monarchy, so I don't think that would cause any difficulty. Even today, the title of Prince of Wales and the title and properties of the Duchy of Cornwall transfer from one person to another upon every change of reign.

 

[Prinsara]

Luckily he didn't as had he created her Princess of Wales in her own right then he would have had to strip her of those title when Edward was born - he was created Prince of Wales in his own right as the heir apparent.

Mary had already been stripped of everything at that point including a princessly title. Henry wouldn’t have had to lift another finger.

 

[meeralakshmi]

Mary had already been stripped of everything at that point including a princessly title. Henry wouldn’t have had to lift another finger.

What happened exactly? I see that she became queen after Edward VI died.

 

[meeralakshmi]

Oh I see, she was declared illegitimate after her parents divorced.

 

[Iluvbertie]

She was declared illegitimate but the public loved her and didn't accept her as such ever - even the most protestant of people accepted that she was legitimate. Most didn't express that view out of fear but that was the case - so much so that even though she was staunchly Roman Catholic she was accepted as Queen on the death of Edward VI, who wanted to bypass both his half-sisters in favour of his cousin, Lady Jane Grey.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Titles, offices and properties passing from one person to another is normal in a hereditary monarchy, so I don't think that would cause any difficulty. Even today, the title of Prince of Wales and the title and properties of the Duchy of Cornwall transfer from one person to another upon every change of reign.

It could have caused an issue because the Prince of Wales title isn't inheritable but once given is held for life or until the holder ascends the throne or dies. Once the previous holder does one of those three things the title ceases to be and has to be recreated for the next holder as we saw when Charles took just over 24 hours to create William as Prince of Wales, while Elizabeth II took over six years before giving that title to Charles. Duke of Cornwall is automatic if the criteria is meet but Prince of Wales must be created each time and isn't inheritable.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

It could have caused an issue because the Prince of Wales title isn't inheritable but once given is held for life or until the holder ascends the throne or dies.

Particularly in the 16th century, I think the principle of sons' precedence over daughters was so deeply held by society at large that nobody, including Mary herself, would have thought of claiming that Mary ought to retain the principality after the birth of a legitimate son to the King.

 

[meeralakshmi]

Particularly in the 16th century, I think the principle of sons' precedence over daughters was so deeply held by society at large that nobody, including Mary herself, would have thought of claiming that Mary ought to retain the principality after the birth of a (legitimate) son to the King.

That would be similar to a Spanish female heir presumptive losing the title of Princess of Asturias to a younger brother.

 

[meeralakshmi]

In general, the book and the movie are more plausible with the royal stuff than the Hallmark movies with a prince (love those too) so if you have a very basic understanding of royals it seems accurate but if you know the subject you see some discrepancies (same with Young Royals). There will be another RWRB movie so maybe they'll adress the title thing

King James being James III rather than James VIII is one thing the movie got wrong (in the book the monarch is Queen Mary III).

 

[Gawin]

It is possible for a Prince of Wales to be deprived of the title once he is no longer the heir.
It happened to James II's son James Francis Edward who had been created Prince of Wales shortly after his birth only to lose the title when his father was deposed later the same year. Four other princes were subsequently created Prince of Wales during James Francis Edward's lifetime: the future George II in 1714, Frederick Louis in 1728, the future George III in 1751, and the future George IV in 1762.

If Henry VIII had created his daughter Mary the Princess of Wales, she would have been stripped of the title when the First Succession Act passed by Parliament in March 1534 declared she was a bastard and removed her from the line of succession, assuming Henry hadn't removed it before then.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

It happened to James II's son James Francis Edward who had been created Prince of Wales shortly after his birth only to lose the title when his father was deposed later the same year. Four other princes were subsequently created Prince of Wales during James Francis Edward's lifetime: the future George II in 1714, Frederick Louis in 1728, the future George III in 1751, and the future George IV in 1762.

Do you know whether the reigning sovereigns revoked or withheld any other royal titles (e.g. Prince/ss or Highness) from the deposed Jacobite line (who of course continued to use full royal titles including King, Prince of Wales, Princess Royal, etc. because they considered themselves the de jure royal family in exile)?

 

[Gawin]

Do you know whether the reigning sovereigns revoked or withheld any other royal titles (e.g. Prince/ss or Highness) from the deposed Jacobite line (who of course continued to use full royal titles including King, Prince of Wales, Princess Royal, etc. because they considered themselves the de jure royal family in exile)?

I don't know the answer to that question.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

If the heir is a female then a younger brother can't be Duke of Cornwall as to be Duke of Cornwall [...] the person has to be both the heir apparent AND the eldest son of the Sovereign.

That is the government's position, but after reading the charter of the Duchy of Cornwall I am not sure the government is correct. I've elaborated on this in the Duchy of Cornwall thread.

Duchy of Cornwall

If that's the plan with the Duchy, then I wonder if a similar plan will be undertaken with PoW... Maybe, but legislation isn't needed for that, so Parliament won't have to be involved.

www.theroyalforums.com

 

[meeralakshmi]

Sometimes a peerage will match the holder’s surname and sometimes it won’t.

Louis Mountbatten (formerly Prince Louis of Battenberg) was created Earl Mountbatten of Burma by George VI. As he had no sons George issued LP allowing the earldom to pass to Louis’ daughters and their male male-line descendants. His older daughter married John Knatchbull, 7th Baron Brabourne so all the successors to the earldom will have the surname Knatchbull despite the title remaining Earl (and Countess for Patricia) Mountbatten of Burma.

 

[meeralakshmi]

As he had no sons George issued LP allowing the earldom to pass to Louis’ daughters and their male male-line descendants.

* daughters, their sons, and their male male-line descendants