Royal Dukes, Royal Duchies and Royal Ducal Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Tatiana Maria]

She would likely be known Princess Philip of Greece and Denmark.

Princess Philip of Greece is more likely. "the late Prince Andrew of Greece and Princess Andrew (Princess Alice of Battenberg)" was used for Philip's parents in the announcement of their son's engagement.

Didn't prince Philip already use the Mountbatten surname in the Navy? That was well before even meeting Elizabeth.

No, he signed "Philip, Prince of Greece" at the time.

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-...ge-life-profile-of-prince-philip-1563268.html

The future Queen Anne was known as Princess George of Denmark until she succeeded her cousin/brother-in-law.

She was known as Princess Ann of Denmark as the British royal court had yet to adopt the custom of using the husband's given name for married women.

If she married Philip while Edward was still king, she would have been Princess Elizabeth, Mrs. Mountbatten unless Edward created Philip The Duke of Edinburgh [...]

That's possible, but in reality the styles used for British princesses who wed untitled men were Lady Patricia Ramsay who renounced her own princessly title, Princess Margaret who retained it with no changes, and Princess Alexandra, the Honourable Mrs. Angus Ogilvy, Princess Beatrice, Mrs. Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi, and Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank who kept their princessly titles but had the first and last names of their husband, prefixed by Mrs., joined to it.

 

[Mbruno]

She would likely be known Princess Philip of Greece and Denmark.

I don't think so.


1) Elizabeth was a British princess in her own right. So, if the normal convention were followed, she should be styled HRH Princess Elizabeth, [Female version of her husband's title/style], in this case, HRH Princess Elizabeth, Princess Philip of Greece and Denmark.


2) On top of that, even if Edward VIII had remained king, Princess Elizabeth would still be the heiress presumptive to the throne, as David and Wallis would never have a child of their own. It is very likely that LPs would have been issued to give Philip a peerage (and an HRH) and to make Elizabeth's children princes/ princesses in their own right. So, most likely, she would be HRH Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of [xxx], and her children HRH Prince/Princess [name] of [xxx]. That is obviously speculation though as it is a hypothetical scenario.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Didn't prince Philip already use the Mountbatten surname in the Navy? That was well before even meeting Elizabeth.

No - he was HRH Prince Phillip of Greece and Denmark in the navy.

He didn't start to use any surname at all until 1947.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

No - he was HRH Prince Phillip of Greece and Denmark in the navy.

No, he normally used the designation "of Greece" in the Navy, not "of Greece and Denmark" (see the link upthread).

1) Elizabeth was a British princess in her own right. So, if the normal convention were followed, she should be styled HRH Princess Elizabeth, [Female version of her husband's title/style], in this case, HRH Princess Elizabeth, Princess Philip of Greece and Denmark.

The normal convention for British princesses who married princes was the same as elsewhere in Europe, to be styled using the title of the husband (and, in the case of British usage, his forename), such as Princess Arthur of Connaught and Princess Charles of Denmark.

I doubt Elizabeth would have used "and Denmark" if her husband did not.

 

[Mbruno]

The normal convention for British princesses who married princes was the same as elsewhere in Europe, to be styled using the title of the husband (and, in the case of British usage, his forename), such as Princess Arthur of Connaught and Princess Charles of Denmark.

I think it is a somewhat different situation from Princess Charles of Denmark (a British princess who became an actual member of a foreign royal family and lived at least part time overseas) or Princess Arthur of Connaught (a British princess married to another British prince).

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I think it is a somewhat different situation from Princess Charles of Denmark (a British princess who became an actual member of a foreign royal family and lived at least part time overseas) or Princess Arthur of Connaught (a British princess married to another British prince).

The British princesses who married foreign princes and whose husbands became members of the British royal family and lived in Britain were styled in the same fashion, such as Princess Christian of Schleswig-Holstein and Princess Henry of Battenberg (though they subsequently dropped their German styles and titles due to the First World War).

 

[Mbruno]

The British princesses who married foreign princes and whose husbands became members of the British royal family and lived in Britain were styled in the same fashion, such as Princess Christian of Schleswig-Holstein and Princess Henry of Battenberg (though they subsequently dropped their German styles and titles due to the First World War).

The future Queen Anne, however, another heiress presumptive, is named "Princess Anne of Denmark" in the Act of Settlement, rather than Princess George of Denmark. Maybe it is a more recent Victorian custom?


Given Elizabeth's position in the line of succession, I still find it unlikely she would be known as Princess Philip. And Philip would probably still have to renounce his foreign titles anyway.

 

[SLV]

No, he signed "Philip, Prince of Greece" at the time.

No - he was HRH Prince Phillip of Greece and Denmark in the navy.

He didn't start to use any surname at all until 1947.

Thank you both.

 

[Westfield Bakery]

What would Charles and Anne be called?

Lord Charles Mountbatten?

Lady Anne Mountbatten?

 

[Westfield Bakery]

Not in this reality. Women weren't granted hereditary peerages then and they aren't granted now.

If she married Philip while Edward was still king, she would have been Princess Elizabeth, Mrs. Mountbatten unless Edward created Philip The Duke of Edinburgh in which then she would have been known as Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh. In her father's reign, upon marriage, she was known as The Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh.

What would Charles be?

Mr Charles Mountbatten?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The children of Princess Elizabeth (or Princess Elizabeth, Mrs. Philip Mountbatten) and Mr. Philip Mountbatten would have been called Master Charles Mountbatten and Miss Anne Mountbatten, unless granted titles by the King. British princesses do not automatically transmit titles to their children.

The children of Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh and The Duke of Edinburgh would have been called Earl of Merioneth (the Duke's second highest title) and Lady Anne Mountbatten, following the customs of the British peerage, unless granted higher titles by the King, as he did in reality.

 

[Westfield Bakery]

The children of Princess Elizabeth (or Princess Elizabeth, Mrs. Philip Mountbatten) and Mr. Philip Mountbatten would have been called Master Charles Mountbatten and Miss Anne Mountbatten, unless granted titles by the King. British princesses do not automatically transmit titles to their children.

The children of Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh and The Duke of Edinburgh would have been called Earl of Merioneth (the Duke's second highest title) and Lady Anne Mountbatten, following the customs of the British peerage, unless granted higher titles by the King, as he did in reality.

So, William and Harry would have been Baron Greenwich and Mr. Harry Mountbatten or Lord Harry Mountbatten

 

[CyrilVladisla]

So, William and Harry would have been Baron Greenwich and Mr. Harry Mountbatten or Lord Harry Mountbatten

Yes, That is correct. William Arthur would have had the secondary title of Prince Philip, which was Baron Greenwich.

 

[Somebody]

So, William and Harry would have been Baron Greenwich and Mr. Harry Mountbatten or Lord Harry Mountbatten

I believe Harry would be 'The Hon.' instead of 'mr.' or 'Lord'; as he would be treated as the younger son of an earl.

See for example the dukedom of Abercorn, where a grandson by the eldest son who uses a subsidiary title is treated as the son of said title - Marquess: The Duke of Abercorn has two sons. James, the eldest, uses the subsidiary title of 'Marquess of Hamilton', while his younger son is 'Lord Nicholas'. James (Marquess of Hamilton) also has two sons: his eldest (another James) uses the subsidiary title 'Viscount Strabane', while his younger son is known as Lord Claud.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The younger son of an earl is The Hon (Honourable) in certain contexts and otherwise Mr.

Sons of an Earl, Earl and Countess, Titles, Forms Of Address, People of Influence | Debrett's

How to address the Younger Son of an Earl

The recommended (social) style of address is as follows:
Beginning of letter: Dear Mr Browne
End of letter: Yours sincerely
Envelope: The Hon John Browne
Verbal communication: Mr Browne
Invitation: Mr John Browne
Description in conversation: Mr Browne
List of Directors or Patrons: Hon John Browne
Place card: Mr John Browne
Legal document: John Browne Esquire commonly called The Honourable John Browne​

 

[Somebody]

I think the main question was whether he would be treated as such given dat the title of 'earl' would not be Charles's own title but only a subsidiary title from his father the Duke. My take is that it is 'counted' as if it were his own title and therefore, his children would be treated as if they were sons of an earl (subsidiary title for the eldest son, the hon for younger sons and lady for daughters).

 

[Alison H]

The Earl of St Andrews is a subsidiary title of the Duke of Kent, and is used by his eldest son. The Earl's daughters are Lady Marina and Lady Amelia, and his son is Lord (Baron) Downpatrick, another of the Duke of Kent's subsidiary titles. It would presumably have worked the same way for Prince Charles if he'd been Earl of Merioneth, so, yes.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I think the main question was whether he would be treated as such given dat the title of 'earl' would not be Charles's own title but only a subsidiary title from his father the Duke. My take is that it is 'counted' as if it were his own title

You're absolutely correct, and it wasn't my intent to imply otherwise.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I'm curious about why some people think that Charles will not make Edward the Duke of Edinburough. I find it hard to believe the Queen (and Prince Philip) did not consult Charles before she made the promise. She couldn't force Charles so he must have promised her he would do it. Unless Edward doesn't want the title, it would be a public relations nightmare. It's hard to believe that Charles would publicly repudiate a promise to his much loved, popular, mother and father.

It was discussed in depth here (and my suggestion is to continue discussion of the dukedom in that thread):

Royal Dukes, Royal Duchies and Royal Ducal Titles

The bottom line was that royal reporter Roya Nikkhah of The Times published statements from unnamed sources alleging that the Prince of Wales was "reassessing", or possibly even had already decided to set aside, the agreement on the future of the Duke of Edinburgh title which was announced in 1999. A spokesperson for the Prince of Wales described the story as speculation without denying its veracity, and stated that "no final decisions have been taken", which seemed to affirm that the agreement is not a done deal.

Thanks. Perhaps I am mistaken but I am not sure that Charles has ever announced his intention to do anything when he becomes King. I think that is out of respect for the Queen. It would look like Charles was overeager if he were to announce that he will make Edward the Duke of Edinburgh while the Queen is still alive.

On the other hand, there may be some political considerations associated with making anyone the "Duke of Edinburgh." If that is the case, I'm sure that Edward would be disappointed but would understand.

The announcement in 1999 (see third link in post above) stated: "The Queen, The Duke of Edinburgh and The Prince of Wales have also agreed that The Prince Edward should be given the Dukedom of Edinburgh in due course, when the present title now held by Prince Philip eventually reverts to the Crown."

In my opinion, announcing the Prince's "agreement" by definition announces his intention, and as the announcement was issued in the Queen's name, I do not think it would have been interpreted as disrespectful to her.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

It is purely a diplomatic move to maintain the idea that the Sovereign is the Fons Honorum and and decides so: one can not publicly fasten the Sovereign's free hand with a tie wrap: Thou Shalt Create Edward Duke of Edinburgh! That is simply "not done".

It is the same as (in most monarchies) with appointments in high offices of state. Officially it is "into His Majesty's gracious consideration to grant His royal assent". He will always grant his assent, but that is the theatre we all play.

It is almost for sure Charles will create the Earl of Wessex and Forfar as a new Duke of Edinburgh, but the present Queen can nog reign beyond her grave and the future King can not make decisions in the present Reign. As long as he is not King, anything has a marge for "consideration".

I think the diplomatic course of action, if that was indeed the feeling of the Prince of Wales, would have been either not to publish the 1999 announcement or to phrase it as a request for the future king's consideration instead of an "agreement" between Prince Charles and his parents.

 

[US Royal Watcher]

The announcement in 1999 (see third link in post above) stated: "The Queen, The Duke of Edinburgh and The Prince of Wales have also agreed that The Prince Edward should be given the Dukedom of Edinburgh in due course, when the present title now held by Prince Philip eventually reverts to the Crown."

In my opinion, announcing the Prince's "agreement" by definition announces his intention, and as the announcement was issued in the Queen's name, I do not think it would have been interpreted as disrespectful to her.

Very interesting. Thanks for digging this up. I agree that this announcement is not disrespectful of the Queen - she actually made it. I meant that it would be disrespectful for Charles to issue a statement about actions he will take as King. It would seem like he is looking forward to is mother's passing - which I am sure he is not.

 

[MsJulie]

This can be moved. I looked but could not find any topic….my question is this, Since Prince Philip has been gone for over a year and the ‘word’ was Prince Edward would get his Fathers Dukedom, has anyone heard if the Queen will bestow Edward with his Fathers title?

When Charles becomes King, i doubt that it will ever happen. I though the Queen would do it, especially with her health problems. Edward and Sophie are very hard working royals, IMO, Edward deserves the title.

Also when Charles is King, will he continue to let Edward and Sophie continue as woking royals or will he ‘fire/retire’ all the extra help. Charles is no spring chicken.

 

[Sionevar]

This can be moved. I looked but could not find any topic….my question is this, Since Prince Philip has been gone for over a year and the ‘word’ was Prince Edward would get his Fathers Dukedom, has anyone heard if the Queen will bestow Edward with his Fathers title?

When Charles becomes King, i doubt that it will ever happen. I though the Queen would do it, especially with her health problems. Edward and Sophie are very hard working royals, IMO, Edward deserves the title.

The Queen can't give Edward the Edinburgh dukedom, because it currently belongs to Charles, who inherited the title upon Philip's death, being Philip's eldest legitimate son.

In theory, she could create a second, entirely separate dukedom that had Edinburgh somewhere in the title, and give that to Edward, but I don't see that happening.

When the Queen dies, and Charles becomes King, the dukedom will merge with the Crown, and will then be available for recreation. Whether Charles grants it to Edward remains to be seen. I personally hope he will, if only to honour the arrangement that was agreed upon back when Edward got married. Not giving it to him would IMHO be awfully mean.

 

[muriel]

This can be moved. I looked but could not find any topic….my question is this, Since Prince Philip has been gone for over a year and the ‘word’ was Prince Edward would get his Fathers Dukedom, has anyone heard if the Queen will bestow Edward with his Fathers title?

When Charles becomes King, i doubt that it will ever happen. I though the Queen would do it, especially with her health problems. Edward and Sophie are very hard working royals, IMO, Edward deserves the title.

Also when Charles is King, will he continue to let Edward and Sophie continue as woking royals or will he ‘fire/retire’ all the extra help. Charles is no spring chicken.

At the time of the wedding of Edward and Sophie, it was communicated that in the next reign it was intended that Charles would create Edward the Duke of Edinburgh. As of now, Charles is the Duke of Edinburgh. When he becomes King, the title will merge with the crown, and Charles can then create Edward the next Duke of Edinburgh.

 

[winifred]

Also when Charles is King, will he continue to let Edward and Sophie continue as woking royals or will he ‘fire/retire’ all the extra help. Charles is no spring chicken.

There are currently 12 working royals, only 4 of whom are under 70 - William, Kate, Sophie, Edward. Charles isn't going to sack Anne, Edward, Sophie, Alexandra, the Gloucesters and the Duke of Kent when he becomes King and leave just himself, Camilla and the Cambridges to carry out royal duties. It will be years before George is ready to be a full-time royal.

 

[Denville]

There are currently 12 working royals, only 4 of whom are under 70 - William, Kate, Sophie, Edward. Charles isn't going to sack Anne, Edward, Sophie, Alexandra, the Gloucesters and the Duke of Kent when he becomes King and leave just himself, Camilla and the Cambridges to carry out royal duties. It will be years before George is ready to be a full-time royal.

obviously he is not going to get rid of his siblings and cousins (except Andrew) but he wotn replace them when they drop off through natural attrition. Edward and Sophie are reasonably good hard working royals and young enough to go on for many years.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

[...] in 2005, Hubertus and the other Coburg males were not heirs to the dukedom of Albany.

Only male heirs born in wedlock may succeed to the dukedom, granted to Prince Leopold's "heirs male of his body lawfully begotten".

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/24977/page/2677

By the Royal Marriages Act of 1772, when a descendant of King George II (other than the issue of princesses married into foreign families) contracted marriage without the consent of the monarch, the marriage was null and void, and consequently the couple's children were illegitimate.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/apgb/Geo3/12/11/contents

For example, the Royal Marriages Act was followed when Prince Augustus Frederick, Duke of Sussex, married in breach of it. His marriage was declared null and void, and the couple's son Augustus Frederick d'Este was, as an illegitimate child, unable to inherit the dukedom of Sussex.


Per the author of Queen Victoria's Descendants, no descendant of Prince Leopold's only son, Charles Edward, ever sought approval from the British monarch before marrying.

Therefore, so long as the Royal Marriages Act was maintained, the grandchildren of Charles Edward, and their heirs, were illegitimate in the United Kingdom and excluded from the line of succession to the dukedom of Albany.


[...]

The Succession to the Crown Act of 2013 did legitimize marriages which were null and void under the Royal Marriages Act, but only if "in all the circumstances it was reasonable for the person concerned not to have been aware at the time of the marriage that the Act applied to it", per section 3, subsection 5 (a).

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/20

If it was not reasonable for Duke Charles Edward's descendants to have been unaware that the Royal Marriages Act applied to them, then his heirs are still illegitimate in the United Kingdom and there are no heirs to the dukedom of Albany.

A British Foreign Office investigation in 1950 confirmed that none of the children of Duke Karl Eduard of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, Duke of Albany, requested permission from the British monarch for any of their marriages.

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/TNA/HO_45_25238.htm

Therefore, all of the grandchildren of Duke Karl Eduard were illegitimate in British law (at least until the Succession to the Crown Act), and consequently they and their descendants (including Hubertus) were not in line to petition for the succession to the suspended dukedom of Albany.

So between the death of Duke Karl Eduard's last surviving son (who was legitimate in British law as Karl Eduard received permission for his own marriage) in 1983 and the Succession to the Crown Act taking effect in 2015, the Dukedom of Albany was extinct and available for regrant. There was no legal obstacle to the Queen creating Prince Andrew in 1986, Prince Edward in 1999, or Prince William in 2011 as Duke of Albany.

 

[MonacoRoyalFan]

https://inews.co.uk/news/york-votes...edom-city-virginia-giuffre-settlement-1599094

Interesting that Councillor David Taylor expressed hopes of Princess Beatrice becoming The Duchess of York upon the city of York stripping Andrew of the freedom of the city.

“In contrast to her father, she is personable, intelligent and does her homework, or reads her briefing papers when visiting the City of York,” Mr Taylor said.

 

[Sionevar]

https://inews.co.uk/news/york-votes...edom-city-virginia-giuffre-settlement-1599094

Interesting that Councillor David Taylor expressed hopes of Princess Beatrice becoming The Duchess of York upon the city of York stripping Andrew of the freedom of the city.

“In contrast to her father, she is personable, intelligent and does her homework, or reads her briefing papers when visiting the City of York,” Mr Taylor said.

It's a nice idea, and I can easily see Beatrice doing a great job, bringing some prestige back to the title, but it's not going to happen. The dukedom will be left where it is, to become extinct again at Andrew's death, and may eventually be re-granted once all current negative connotations have faded.

 

[Marengo]

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