Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Princess B]

Once they are a 'The' they are a 'The' for life.



e.g. Princess Margaret - who was the last 'The' whose monarch parent died remained HRH The Princess Margaret, The Countess of Snowdon until she died. She didn't drop the 'The' when her sister ascended the throne.



The same with The Queen's aunt and uncles - they kept the 'The' into her father's and then her reign.

Thanks a ton!!

 

[LauraS3514]

Once they are a 'The' they are a 'The' for life.

e.g. Princess Margaret - who was the last 'The' whose monarch parent died remained HRH The Princess Margaret, The Countess of Snowdon until she died. She didn't drop the 'The' when her sister ascended the throne.

The same with The Queen's aunt and uncles - they kept the 'The' into her father's and then her reign.

The "The" designates that they are the child of a Sovereign, but not necessarily the current Sovereign.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Per reports, the German identification documents of the present members of the House of Hanover state their names as "Prince/Princess of Hanover Duke/Duchess of Brunswick and Lunenburg Royal Prince/Princess of Great Britain and Ireland".

https://www.haz.de/Hannover/Aus-der...Hannovers-Prinz-Ernst-August-im-HAZ-Interview

It's been said that despite the recognition from the republic of Germany, the "Royal Prince/Princess of Great Britain and Ireland" is not accepted by the British sovereigns or used in their British passports. Is there evidence for that non-acceptance, or is it conjecture?

 

[Durham]

Per reports, the German identification documents of the present members of the House of Hanover state their names as "Prince/Princess of Hanover Duke/Duchess of Brunswick and Lunenburg Royal Prince/Princess of Great Britain and Ireland".

https://www.haz.de/Hannover/Aus-der...Hannovers-Prinz-Ernst-August-im-HAZ-Interview

It's been said that despite the recognition from the republic of Germany, the "Royal Prince/Princess of Great Britain and Ireland" is not accepted by the British sovereigns or used in their British passports. Is there evidence for that non-acceptance, or is it conjecture?

Interestingly the designation "of Great Britain & Ireland" became redundant in 1949 with the declaration of the Republic of Ireland. And possibly even earlier in 1922 with the establishment of the Irish Free State.

So maybe it's not so much a matter of acceptance but rather the reality that these are redundant styles. They are maybe therefore of historical curiosity only.

 

[An Ard Ri]

Interestingly the designation "of Great Britain & Ireland" became redundant in 1949 with the declaration of the Republic of Ireland. And possibly even earlier in 1922 with the establishment of the Irish Free State.

So maybe it's not so much a matter of acceptance but rather the reality that these are redundant styles. They are maybe therefore of historical curiosity only.

In 1927, the United Kingdom changed its name to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_and_Parliamentary_Titles_Act_1927

 

[Heavs]

Doesn't Germany treat titles as extraordinarily long surnames anyway for legal purposes? So it doesn't necessarily matter what you put.

In the UK they *might* note on his passport that "holder is also known as the Prince of Hannover etc" But that would be all.

Whilst BP has used HRH Prince/ss of Hanover when referring to EA and Caroline I doubt they would think it diplomatic to use "Of Great Britain and Ireland" and as far as I can tell from my periodic dives into trying to find out if EA senior's claims are correct, they have never used "Prince of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" for him and thus confirming that the title is still "active" and updated to reflect current political reality.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The Hanoverians aren't Prince/Princess of the UK anymore.

In 1917 George V limited that style to the children of a sovereign. male-line grandchildren of a sovereign and the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales (the Queen extended that last one to all the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales in 2012).

The Titles Deprivation Act, 1917 also removed the right to the Princely style for those who held that but were deemed to be 'enjoying any dignity or title as a peer or British prince who have, during the present war, borne arms against His Majesty or His Allies, or who have adhered to His Majesty’s enemies.'

These people were deprived of their right to be a British prince.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Thank you to Durham, Heavs and Iluvbertie for your useful observations, An Ard Ri for the useful link, and to Heavs for the information on Buckingham Palace usage.

The Hanoverians aren't Prince/Princess of the UK anymore.

In 1917 George V limited that style to the children of a sovereign. male-line grandchildren of a sovereign and the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales (the Queen extended that last one to all the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales in 2012).

The Titles Deprivation Act, 1917 also removed the right to the Princely style for those who held that but were deemed to be 'enjoying any dignity or title as a peer or British prince who have, during the present war, borne arms against His Majesty or His Allies, or who have adhered to His Majesty’s enemies.'

These people were deprived of their right to be a British prince.

To expand on your comment, the effects of the Titles Deprivation Act and the Letters Patent of 1917 were limited to certain members of the family. The Titles Deprivation Act was only invoked to deprive the heads of the house, the reigning Duke of Brunswick and his father the Duke of Cumberland (who, as one would expect, continued to use his British ducal title regardless). The 1917 Letters Patent had a wider application, but contained a clause reserving titles which had been conferred by previous decrees, which had been done for the children of the Duke of Brunswick in 1914.

They are now deceased, and I see you are correct that the present members of the family are not entitled under current UK law to be styled HRH Prince/ss. However, Heavs stated that Buckingham Palace has used the style for them.

As for the territorial designation "of Great Britain and Ireland", the Letters Patent of 1917 does not impose limits on territorial designations. And, given that it is included in the present Hanoverians' German passports, wouldn't acceptance of it be consistent with the general Buckingham Palace policy of using the titles of deposed dynasties?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Assuming that women who belong to or marry into the aristocracy have a choice in whether to use their husbands' names or not (I'm aware that is disputed): What is the correct way to style a daughter or daughter-in-law of a peer who does not wish to use her husband's name?

E.g., The Honourable Esther Clark marries Mr. Peter Jordan and her brother The Honourable John Clark marries Ms. Mary Young. By tradition, the women would become The Honourable Mrs. Jordan and The Honourable Mrs. John Clark, respectively.

However, if both women elect to continue using their own family names, then what styles should be used for them? The Hon. Esther Clark, The Hon. Mrs. Esther Clark, or The Hon. Mrs. Clark? The Hon. Mrs. Young, The Hon. Mrs. Mary Young, The Hon. Mary Young, or plain Ms. Mary Young?

Alternatively, if Mary wishes to use her husband's family name (Clark) but not his given name (John), would she be The Hon. Mary Clark, The Hon. Mrs. Mary Clark, or The Hon. Mrs. Clark?

 

[Denville]

I would say that if Miss Mary Brown marries the HOn George Smith and does not wish to use his name.. she shoud simply be Miss or Ms Mary Brown.. Otherwise, she goes by her husband's name and title of the Hon Mrs George Smith. If she wants to use the surname but not the title, then Ms Mary Smityh

 

[Durham]

As for the territorial designation "of Great Britain and Ireland", the Letters Patent of 1917 does not impose limits on territorial designations. And, given that it is included in the present Hanoverians' German passports, wouldn't acceptance of it be consistent with the general Buckingham Palace policy of using the titles of deposed dynasties?

I think the issue would be the (hyper)sensivity over the "Ireland" bit. I would be genuinely shocked if BP used or accepted such wording other than in a purely historical context. So not for someone alive today.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I am not sure if I should put this question in the British titles or non-British titles section as it is a comparison.

Mbruno wrote "The blame lies solely on the sloppy drafting of the Royal Decree's text by whoever was responsible for it in the government."

Exactly. And Delphine's detractors would not be gnashing their teeth over her royal windfall today had more careful legal experts been used in the 1990's. But they were not, so there exists -no legal obstacle- to Delphine and her kids being granted equity with Astrid, Laurent and their kids.

First, the court decision conferring royal titles on Delphine and her children relied exclusively on the 2015 decree about the title Prince/ss of Belgium. Nothing in the succession law from the 1990s has anything to say about titles.

Second, what is the reason that royal watchers on the whole treat the Belgian royal decrees very differently than equivalent royal decrees and decisions in other European monarchies, particularly the UK and Spain?

Following the court decision, the internet was full of comments declaring that the 2015 Belgian royal decree was sloppily drafted as it failed to explicitly mention words such as "legitimacy" or "marriage" and saying that for this reason, it should not be construed as excluding extramarital children.

That is debatably true (although it is not that simple, as there are other ways of construing the text of the decree, as was discussed in the Belgian threads). But the British letters patent of 1917 never mention "legitimate" or "marital", either: only "children" and "son".

Now Know Ye that We of our especial grace certain knowledge and mere motion do hereby declare our Royal Will and Pleasure that the children of any Sovereign of these Realms and the children of the sons of any such Sovereign and the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names or with their other titles of honour
​

Yet the phrasing of the British 1917 letters patent is never assumed to be sloppy, and commenters hardly ever claim that there "exists -no legal obstacle-" to a child born out of wedlock to a British royal becoming a Prince/ss (in fact, I have seen commenters claim that it is impossible). Why the difference in interpretation?

(For the avoidance of confusion, my personal opinion is that it is simpler to interpret the text of the British letters patent as granting titles to illegitimate children than to do the same with the Belgian royal decree. But it seems obvious that most commenters feel that it is the the other way around.)

 

[Mbruno]

Second, what is the reason that royal watchers on the whole treat the Belgian royal decrees very differently than equivalent royal decrees and decisions in other European monarchies, particularly the UK and Spain?

Compare the Belgian royal decrees, however, to the Dutch Wet lidmaatschap koninklijk huis , which explicitly mentions "children born of a marriage of the King" and "children born of a marriage of the heir presumptive". In comparison, the Belgian royal decrees were sloppily drafted unless they had an original intention to be inclusive of illegitimate children, which I doubt.

The fact that smiliar deficiencies may be found in British letters patent or Spanish royal decrees does not excuse the bad wording of the Belgian royal decrees. It should be noted, however, that illegitimate children of Kings inormally were not in the past recognized as princes or infantes in the way Delphine was, so maybe the problem was the Belgian court's literal reading of the royal decree of 2015, whereas a British or Spanish judge might have otherwise concluded that legitimacy was implied even if not explicitly mentioned.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The fact that smiliar deficiencies may be found in British letters patent or Spanish royal decrees does not excuse the bad wording of the Belgian royal decrees.

Thanks for the response. Just a clarification: I wasn't expressing an opinion about whether the Belgian royal decrees were badly worded (that would probably be off-topic here), but asking why the British and Spanish decrees are not criticized as badly worded on the same grounds. Do you or anyone else have any thoughts on that?

It should be noted, however, that illegitimate children of Kings inormally were not in the past recognized as princes or infantes in the way Delphine was, so maybe the problem was the Belgian court's literal reading of the royal decree of 2015, whereas a British or Spanish judge might have otherwise concluded that legitimacy was implied even if not explicitly mentioned.

The issue has never been tested in Britain because no extramarital child of a British king or prince has ever received a legal acknowledgement of paternity.

In Spain, Leandro Ruiz obtained an acknowledgement of paternity from the courts, just as Delphine Boël did, but for some reason, his usage of the title Infante was never recognized by the courts or by the Spanish royal family, even though he argued (I think correctly) that the 1987 royal decree did not include a limitation to legitimate children.

 

[Mbruno]

When HRH The Princess Beatrice married HSH Prince Henry of Battenberg why did she become HRH Princess Henry of Battenberg rather than HRH The Princess Beatrice, Princess Henry of Battenberg (like HRH The Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon)?

Is the custom of British princesses keeping their forenames in their styles when marrying men of lower rank a more recent one? Or was it simply because Queen Victoria elevated Prince Henry to HRH in the United Kingdom upon his marriage, thus giving him equal rank to Princess Beatrice?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

When HRH The Princess Beatrice married HSH Prince Henry of Battenberg why did she become HRH Princess Henry of Battenberg rather than HRH The Princess Beatrice, Princess Henry of Battenberg (like HRH The Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon)?

Is the custom of British princesses keeping their forenames in their styles when marrying men of lower rank a more recent one? Or was it simply because Queen Victoria elevated Prince Henry to HRH in the United Kingdom upon his marriage, thus giving him equal rank to Princess Beatrice?

I think it was, and remains, the custom everywhere in Europe that a princess marrying a prince styles herself with the title of her husband (though there were and still are numerous exceptions to the rule). Current examples include Princess Caroline of Monaco, who styles herself the Princess of Hanover, and Princess Margaretha of Luxembourg, who styles herself Princess Margaretha of Liechtenstein.

There seems to be more diversity in custom over the styles of princesses who marry men of lower than princely rank. Had Margaret had been a German princess, she would most likely have been styled - assuming she kept her rank and title after marriage - as HRH Margaret Armstrong-Jones upon her marriage to Mr. Antony Armstrong-Jones.

As for Beatrice, she was indeed styled HRH the Princess Henry of Battenberg during her marriage, but in her widowhood she often was styled HRH the Princess Beatrice, Princess Henry of Battenberg. After the British royal family renounced their German titles, she reverted to HRH the Princess Beatrice.

 

[Marengo]

It's time to close this thread. You can find the new one here.