Questions about British Styles and Titles 4: Feb 2026 -

[Marengo]

Arms of The United Kingdom

Welcome to the thread Questions about British Styles and Titles, Part 4

Commencing 9 February 2026

The previous thread can be found here


Please take a look at the
TRF Community Rules


· Only pictures that you have written permission to share can be posted here. You can post links to any pictures.

· It's a copyright violation to post translations of entire articles, so no more than 20% of an article

text should be posted, along with the link to the original article.

· We expect our members to treat each other, and the royals and persons in these threads, with respect.

· The Report Post button is for reporting inappropriate content in a post if no moderators or administrators are online.

· Threads should remain on topic. Posts which are irrelevant or disruptive

will be deleted or moved by one of the moderators.



***​

 

[Tatiana Maria]

In regards to titles, the British royal family seems unusual in one respect.

In many European ruling houses, including the British, there are some male-line descendants (or their wives) who are not entitled to full royal titles.

In most such monarchies, one or more male-line descendants or their wives have ignored the law, the monarch, and the government, and called themselves by a title they did not possess and had no right to use.

(For example: "Prince" Alvaro of Bourbon, who in reality is a mere Excellency, "Princess" Marianne Bernadotte, who in reality was a mere Countess of Wisborg, or Princess Julie "of Luxembourg", who in reality is only Princess Julie of Nassau.)


But it seems the non-royal descendants of the British royal family have been remarkably obedient in respect of titles. As far as I know, no descendants of the British royal family have ever used a title they were not officially entitled to use.

Does anyone have an idea as to why British royal descendants are unusually compliant when it comes to titles?

 

[meeralakshmi]

Post in thread 'Questions about British Styles and Titles 3: Aug 2023 - Feb 2026'
Questions about British Styles and Titles 3: Aug 2023 - Feb 2026

Post in thread 'Questions about British Styles and Titles 3: Aug 2023 - Feb 2026'
Questions about British Styles and Titles 3: Aug 2023 - Feb 2026

Responding to these posts by @Mbruno and @Angela Cliffe - Stuarts here since the previous thread has been locked. To follow the Spanish system and introduce gender equality as the posts suggest:

- Non-heir princes/princesses are granted peerages upon their marriages.
- Their spouses are made non-royal consorts of the peerages.
- Their children are styled as children of non-royal peers.
- The peerages follow absolute primogeniture.

 

[Gawin]

In regards to titles, the British royal family seems unusual in one respect.

In many European ruling houses, including the British, there are some male-line descendants (or their wives) who are not entitled to full royal titles.

In most such monarchies, one or more male-line descendants or their wives have ignored the law, the monarch, and the government, and called themselves by a title they did not possess and had no right to use.

(For example: "Prince" Alvaro of Bourbon, who in reality is a mere Excellency, "Princess" Marianne Bernadotte, who in reality was a mere Countess of Wisborg, or Princess Julie "of Luxembourg", who in reality is only Princess Julie of Nassau.)


But it seems the non-royal descendants of the British royal family have been remarkably obedient in respect of titles. As far as I know, no descendants of the British royal family have ever used a title they were not officially entitled to use.

Does anyone have an idea as to why British royal descendants are unusually compliant when it comes to titles?

The Duke of Windsor (formerly King Edward VIII) ignored his brother George VI’s Letters Patent denying the Duchess of Windsor the title of Royal Highness, at least in private:

“Within the realm of his own household, he constituted himself as Fountain of Honor and conferred upon his Duchess, for all within earshot to hear, the title and style so brutally withheld elsewhere. The Windsor servants were under stern instructions to address her directly as “Ma’am,” and when referring to her – whether among themselves or to outsiders, guests, vendors, and callers alike – to speak of her as “Her Royal Highness.” A note to her from a member of the staff began with the salutation “Madam,” and ended with the flourish, “I am Madam, Your Royal Highness’s devoted and obedient servant.” A curtsey was not obligatory, although some liked to make a quick bob; but all were required to remain standing in her presence.”

The Duke had wanted to challenge the LP but was persuaded not to by Lord Monckton:

“Monckton, who had himself judged the King’s denial of the title “a mean and petty gesture,” reminded him that the senior law officers of the Government would support the King in resisting any effort to reverse the original ruling. To challenge his prerogatives in a matter affecting the private sensibilities of the royal family would stir up a storm not only in Britain but throughout the Empire. The certain result, Monckton warned the Duke, would be to bare every unusual aspect of the Duchess’s character and conduct that the press could uncover.”

Source: The Windsor Story (1979) by J. Bryan III and Charles J. V. Murphy, pp. 411-412.

 

[Iluvbertie]

In regards to titles, the British royal family seems unusual in one respect.

In many European ruling houses, including the British, there are some male-line descendants (or their wives) who are not entitled to full royal titles.

In most such monarchies, one or more male-line descendants or their wives have ignored the law, the monarch, and the government, and called themselves by a title they did not possess and had no right to use.

(For example: "Prince" Alvaro of Bourbon, who in reality is a mere Excellency, "Princess" Marianne Bernadotte, who in reality was a mere Countess of Wisborg, or Princess Julie "of Luxembourg", who in reality is only Princess Julie of Nassau.)


But it seems the non-royal descendants of the British royal family have been remarkably obedient in respect of titles. As far as I know, no descendants of the British royal family have ever used a title they were not officially entitled to use.

Does anyone have an idea as to why British royal descendants are unusually compliant when it comes to titles?

I assume because the British royal descendants understand that there are clear rules, laid down by their Sovereign, about who is and who isn't royal and what titles others may or may not have and actually respect those rules and laws.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I assume because the British royal descendants understand that there are clear rules, laid down by their Sovereign, about who is and who isn't royal and what titles others may or may not have and actually respect those rules and laws.

I guess the natural followup question is: Why do the British royal family's descendants have such universal (except for the Duke and Duchess of Windsor) understanding and respect for the title rules laid down by their Sovereigns, compared to descendants of other European royal families?

 

[Iluvbertie]

It is part of the way they are raised - respect for the family and the nation's laws. The vast majority of Brits are raised with the same values.

 

[Andy T]

I have a feeling that Harry was the last royal to receive a hereditary dukedom. From now on, I think the lifetime title conferred on Edward will become the norm. My guess is that Princess Royal and Duke of Cambridge (or Edinbugh) will go to George's siblings when they become vacant and George will become Duke of Cornwall and Prince of Wales before he marries.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I have a feeling that Harry was the last royal to receive a hereditary dukedom. From now on, I think the lifetime title conferred on Edward will become the norm.

Perhaps, but I cannot help remembering that many/most people on this forum (myself included) once believed the usage of non-royal titles by the then Earl of Wessex's children was the new norm for children of British monarchs' younger sons. Then, three years ago, the new King Charles III was seemingly persuaded to revert to the previous norm.

If a future Prince and Princess Louis or a future Prince and Princess Archie insist on full hereditary royal and peerage titles for themselves and their children, perhaps with a potential Oprah Winfrey interview to back them up, that might sway King William V against any potential downsizing, just as it appeared to sway his father.

My guess is that Princess Royal and Duke of Cambridge (or Edinbugh) will go to George's siblings when they become vacant and George will become Duke of Cornwall and Prince of Wales before he marries.

I hope the storied title of Duke (Duchess) of York won't be permanently retired from the Royal Family.

 

[meeralakshmi]

a future Prince and Princess Archie insist on full hereditary royal and peerage titles for themselves and their children

Archie’s kids will only be eligible for the titles of children of a non-royal duke like the children of Prince Edward, Duke of Kent and Prince Richard.

I hope the storied title of Duke (Duchess) of York won't be permanently retired from the Royal Family.

It’ll probably go to a child of George next. If the title could come back from being held by Henry VIII, it can come back from being held by Prince Andrew.

I have a feeling that Harry was the last royal to receive a hereditary dukedom.

Would life dukedoms’ subsidiary titles be hereditary like the earldoms of Wessex and Forfar are?

 

[Gawin]

It’ll probably go to a child of George next. If the title could come back from being held by Henry VIII, it can come back from being held by Prince Andrew.

IMO, the two aren't comparable. Most people don't associate the title with Henry VIII, who was only known as Duke of York until he became Prince of Wales at the age of ten, long before he turned into the tyrant he later became. But Andrew held the title for almost forty years, including the time he was linked to Jeffrey Epstein and faced allegations from Virginia Giuffre.

 

[Biri]

George will become Duke of Cornwall and Prince of Wales before he marries.

Unless he marries when his grandfather King Charles III is still alive.

 

[Andy T]

Perhaps, but I cannot help remembering that many/most people on this forum (myself included) once believed the usage of non-royal titles by the then Earl of Wessex's children was the new norm for children of British monarchs' younger sons. Then, three years ago, the new King Charles III was seemingly persuaded to revert to the previous norm.

If a future Prince and Princess Louis or a future Prince and Princess Archie insist on full hereditary royal and peerage titles for themselves and their children, perhaps with a potential Oprah Winfrey interview to back them up, that might sway King William V against any potential downsizing, just as it appeared to sway his father.



I hope the storied title of Duke (Duchess) of York won't be permanently retired from the Royal Family.

I agree re the York title. As with all titles, there have been "good" and "bad" holders.

Archie's right to be HRH Prince as the male-line grandson of a Monarch is enshrined in letters patent but his oldest son will be His Grace, the Duke of Sussex.

Unless he marries when his grandfather King Charles III is still alive.

My sentence began..."My guess is..."

 

[duke of poliganc]

In regards to titles, the British royal family seems unusual in one respect.

In many European ruling houses, including the British, there are some male-line descendants (or their wives) who are not entitled to full royal titles.

In most such monarchies, one or more male-line descendants or their wives have ignored the law, the monarch, and the government, and called themselves by a title they did not possess and had no right to use.

(For example: "Prince" Alvaro of Bourbon, who in reality is a mere Excellency, "Princess" Marianne Bernadotte, who in reality was a mere Countess of Wisborg, or Princess Julie "of Luxembourg", who in reality is only Princess Julie of Nassau.)


But it seems the non-royal descendants of the British royal family have been remarkably obedient in respect of titles. As far as I know, no descendants of the British royal family have ever used a title they were not officially entitled to use.

Does anyone have an idea as to why British royal descendants are unusually compliant when it comes to titles?

I think currently your statement is correct but there was some incidents other than the Duke of Windsor like the Schleswig-Holstein princesses who ignored him ur request by king George V to drop the use of princess title and just dropped the Schleswig-Holstein part!

Also the Hanovers after being stripped of their British princely titles they kept using them way after the Second World War!

 

[Gawin]

I think currently your statement is correct but there was some incidents other than the Duke of Windsor like the Schleswig-Holstein princesses who ignored him ur request by king George V to drop the use of princess title and just dropped the Schleswig-Holstein part!

Also the Hanovers after being stripped of their British princely titles they kept using them way after the Second World War!

King George V’s Royal Warrant declared that Princesses Helena Victoria and Marie Louise would drop the territorial designation “of Schleswig-Holstein” but would remain Their Highnesses Princess Helena Victoria and Princess Marie Louise.

See Royal Styles and Titles of Great Britain: Documents
(scroll down to "Daughters of Princess Christian of Schleswig-Holstein (1917)")

The children of the Duke and Duchess of Brunswick were created Prince (or Princess) of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland with the style “Highness” by King George V’s Letters Patent dated June 17, 1914.

See Royal Styles and Titles of Great Britain: Documents
(scroll down to "Children of the duke and duchess of Brunswick (June 17, 1914)")

They weren't affected by George V's 1917 Letters Patent restricting the use of British princely titles or styles as it excepted "any such descendant who at the date of these Letters Patent holds or bears any right to any such style degree attribute or titular dignity in pursuance of any Letters Patent granted by Ourselves or any of Our Royal Predecessors and still remaining unrevoked.” Because George V had never revoked the 1914 LP, it remained in effect.

See Royal Styles and Titles of Great Britain: Documents
(scroll down to "Members of the Royal Family (Nov 30, 1917)")

They likewise weren't affected by the Titles Deprivation Act of 1917 aimed at princes/peers who had "borne arms against Your Majesty or Your Allies or who have adhered to Your Majesty's enemies,” which as children they could hardly have done (although their father the Duke of Brunswick and grandfather the Duke of Cumberland both lost their British titles).

See Titles Deprivation Act (1917/1919)

 

[Gawin]

King George V’s Royal Warrant declared that Princesses Helena Victoria and Marie Louise would drop the territorial designation “of Schleswig-Holstein” but would remain Their Highnesses Princess Helena Victoria and Princess Marie Louise.

See Royal Styles and Titles of Great Britain: Documents
(scroll down to "Daughters of Princess Christian of Schleswig-Holstein (1917)")

The children of the Duke and Duchess of Brunswick were created Prince (or Princess) of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland with the style “Highness” by King George V’s Letters Patent dated June 17, 1914.

See Royal Styles and Titles of Great Britain: Documents
(scroll down to "Children of the duke and duchess of Brunswick (June 17, 1914)")

They weren't affected by George V's 1917 Letters Patent restricting the use of British princely titles or styles as it excepted "any such descendant who at the date of these Letters Patent holds or bears any right to any such style degree attribute or titular dignity in pursuance of any Letters Patent granted by Ourselves or any of Our Royal Predecessors and still remaining unrevoked.” Because George V had never revoked the 1914 LP, it remained in effect.

See Royal Styles and Titles of Great Britain: Documents
(scroll down to "Members of the Royal Family (Nov 30, 1917)")

They likewise weren't affected by the Titles Deprivation Act of 1917 aimed at princes/peers who had "borne arms against Your Majesty or Your Allies or who have adhered to Your Majesty's enemies,” which as children they could hardly have done (although their father the Duke of Brunswick and grandfather the Duke of Cumberland both lost their British titles).

See Titles Deprivation Act (1917/1919)

But I should add that the 1914 LP only applied to the children of the Duke and Duchess of Brunswick, not their children's children.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

King George V’s Royal Warrant declared that Princesses Helena Victoria and Marie Louise would drop the territorial designation “of Schleswig-Holstein” but would remain Their Highnesses Princess Helena Victoria and Princess Marie Louise.

See Royal Styles and Titles of Great Britain: Documents
(scroll down to "Daughters of Princess Christian of Schleswig-Holstein (1917)")

This is an often overlooked case of British Princess titles in the female line of the British royal family.

King George V's general proclamation of July 17, 1917 stated in part:

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

In other words, all descendants of Queen Victoria who were British subjects relinquished all their German titles, names, and honors.

Helena Victoria and Marie Louise were grandchildren of Queen Victoria. They were born in the UK, and as the UK applied jus soli nationality until 1983, that meant they were British subjects at birth. Helena Victoria, who never married, therefore remained a British subject in 1917. (Marie Louise lost her British nationality automatically through marriage to a foreign man in 1891. I do not know whether she took steps to recover it after their divorce.)

So Helena Victoria, at least, relinquished her German title of Princess, according to George V's proclamation of 1917.

That means the title of Princess she used from 1917 onwards must have been a British one, granted by King George V's Royal Warrant. Announcement quoted from Gawin's link:

"The King has been pleased to direct that Royal Warrants shall be prepared declaring that Their Highnesses Princess Helena Victoria and Princess Marie Louise of Schleswig-Holstein shall henceforth be styled Their Highnesses Princess Helena Victoria and Princess Marie Louise respectively and whereas the Princesses of the Royal Family who bear the Title of Duchess of Saxony and who are his Subjects have at His Majesty's desire relinquished the said Title, He has been also pleased to direct that Royal Warrants shall be prepared declaring their present styles and making such corresponding alteration in their arms as may be necessary. "​

The same would be true of Marie Louise if she regained her British nationality before 1917.