Diana's Styles and Titles

[ElisaR]

I forgot some people.

I found this in BBC:

Sir Winston Churchill was the first statesman to be given a state funeral in the 20th century.

Former prime ministers, the Duke of Wellington, Lord Henry Palmerston and William Gladstone, had preceded him in this posthumous honour in the 19th century.

Nelson is not mentioned. However, he wasn't a statesman.

 

[Georgia]

Wallis Simpson was not entitled to be known as HRH nor was Edward automatically entitled to be. That title is a gift from the reigning monarch and can only be issued at that monarch disrection. I imagine the title Duke and Duchess of Windsor was dreamt up as Edward could not go back to being Prince of Wales but as a son of a past King and a brother of a reigning King no title would have been inappropiate.

 

[Elspeth]

HRH has been an automatic title for certain members of the royal family since George V issued letters patent in 1917 that defined the members of the royal family that were entitled to the HRH title. I think there seems to be some disagreement about whether he gave up the HRH title by abdicating (although of course he was HM before the abdication, not HRH). But the wording of the letters patent says something about how the people entitled to the title should "have and at all times hold" the title, which suggests that it was still there "in the background" while he was king and should have still been active when he reverted to being a prince.

It seems rather weird, because the letters patent tie the prefix "Prince" to the "royal highness" status, yet it was argued in 1936 that Prince Edward (as he was called immediately after the abdication) somehow wasn't an HRH until the new king granted him the title later. Same thing seems to have happened with Prince Philip, who was given the title "Prince Philip" some time before being officially created a Prince of the United Kingdom.

 

[Georgia]

I had been under the impression that at his birth Philip had been a Prince of Greece and that he had given it up to become a British citizen. Upon his marriage to Princess Elizabeth he was created Duke of Edinburgh as well as HRH but that it was not until 1957 that he became Prince of Great Britain.

 

[branchg]

The argument that HRH Prince Edward was no longer a Royal Highness after the abdication was dreamt up by the Home Secretary John Simon, under pressure from Lord Wigram to find a way to avoid conferring HRH on Wallis.

Simon's solution was to draw up a memorandum of law for the Cabinet to consider in which he argued that: (1) Edward ceased to be a member of the royal family by renouncing the throne; (2) the 1917 letters patent of King George V clarifying who may hold the style and title of Prince/Princess of the UK with the prefix of Royal Highness applied only to members of the royal family who were within the line of succession; and (3) that Edward was essentially allowed by the Act of Abdication to marry whomever he wished without the consent of the Sovereign under the Royal Marriages Act.

Most of the Cabinet and members of Parliament who reviewed this memorandum were not convinced by its merits and believed Wallis was entitled to be a Royal Highness. However, Lord Wigram then argued that the marriage was unlikely to last long and warned of further diminshment of the monarchy if Wallis became HRH and then divorced Edward. This seems to have convinced everyone it would be best if the King acted.

The King decided to frame it as simply being a matter in which the people had rejected Wallis as either Queen Consort or a royal spouse and it therefore followed she could not possibly be a Royal Highness without making a mockery of the Abdication. In his eyes, allowing her to be a Royal Highness would indicate there was no reason why she could not have been Queen Consort in 1936.

The Duke never accepted this argument from the King and maintained to the end that it was illegal and inappropriate, which in reality, it was. He was a male line great-grandson of Queen Victoria at the time of his birth and there is no question that he was entitled under all letters patent to be a prince of the UK with the style of Royal Highness.

 

[branchg]

I had been under the impression that at his birth Philip had been a Prince of Greece and that he had given it up to become a British citizen. Upon his marriage to Princess Elizabeth he was created Duke of Edinburgh as well as HRH but that it was not until 1957 that he became Prince of Great Britain.

This is true, but the interesting thing about Philip was that it was later discovered that as a descendant of the Electress Sophia, under the Sophia Naturalization Act he was automatically a British citizen, similar to the House of Hanover, under the Act of Settlement.

Philip was born a Prince of Greece and Denmark, as the Greek Royal House is essentially Danish, Russian and German, and was founded by Prince William of Denmark. He did renounce all foreign titles to marry Princess Elizabeth and took the name Mountbatten.

King George VI declared Philip's precedence as a prince of the UK, but for some reason did not formally grant him the title, which was rather odd. He was the first commoner granted the style of Royal Highness without being a prince of the UK, although he was given a royal dukedom, a very controversial matter among the existing dukes at the time.

 

[Elspeth]

Upon his marriage to Princess Elizabeth he was created Duke of Edinburgh as well as HRH but that it was not until 1957 that he became Prince of Great Britain.

Yes, I know the HRH and the Prince of Great Britain were conferred separately; the thing that surprises me about it is that it's possible to do it at all. The letters patent issued by George V implied that "Prince" or "Princess" was part of the package deal of being an HRH.

 

[Elspeth]

Most of the Cabinet and members of Parliament who reviewed this memorandum were not convinced by its merits and believed Wallis was entitled to be a Royal Highness. However, Lord Wigram then argued that the marriage was unlikely to last long and warned of further diminshment of the monarchy if Wallis became HRH and then divorced Edward. This seems to have convinced everyone it would be best if the King acted.

This argument is so idiotic that I'm surprised they got away with it. I mean, it would have been possible for the sovereign to strip her of the HRH after divorcing the Duke, just as happened with the Duchess of York after divorcing Prince Andrew. Although I suppose they might have hoped that without the HRH in the first place, she would have been more likely to leave the Duke. Very, very mean-spirited piece of work. It just goes to show that, at that time at any rate, the Establishment was made up of the sort of spineless snobs who would do anything in order to stay in favour with the royals who were currently in power. There's something very unpleasant about the lengths to which the British upper classes will go in order to humiliate outsiders.

The King decided to frame it as simply being a matter in which the people had rejected Wallis as either Queen Consort or a royal spouse and it therefore followed she could not possibly be a Royal Highness without making a mockery of the Abdication. In his eyes, allowing her to be a Royal Highness would indicate there was no reason why she could not have been Queen Consort in 1936.

This argument is also idiotic. The Duke ended up in a morganatic marriage anyway, which made a worse mockery of the abdication than if they'd given her the title and just learned to live with it. Apart from anything else, it doesn't seem to have been the people who were so opposed, it was the establishment figures at the head of the Commonwealth countries, and particularly Queen Elizabeth and Queen Mary in the UK. Nothing to do with "the people," however much they were used as the excuse. It amazes me that the Queen Mother has such a soft, cuddly image; she must have had the world's best PR professionals working for her.

 

[branchg]

I agree! It is clear looking back today that both the Government and the Establishment were determined to punish Edward for abdicating the throne and marrying Wallis. But we should remember this was 1936, not 2006, and the idea of a Sovereign marrying a twice-divorced woman was incredibly shocking to everyone, as was the Abdication. I'm sure King George VI genuinely felt that denying royal rank to Wallis was a necessary component of ensuring the monarchy would survive.

I do feel strongly, however, that by the 1960's and after thirty years of marriage, the Queen should have granted the rank and style to Wallis, despite the objections of the Queen Mother. She was advised by Adeane and many others it was time to do so, but the Queen felt her mother's feelings must come first. So, that's the way it was left.

 

[wymanda]

This argument is also idiotic. The Duke ended up in a morganatic marriage anyway, which made a worse mockery of the abdication than if they'd given her the title and just learned to live with it. Apart from anything else, it doesn't seem to have been the people who were so opposed, it was the establishment figures at the head of the Commonwealth countries, and particularly Queen Elizabeth and Queen Mary in the UK. Nothing to do with "the people," however much they were used as the excuse. It amazes me that the Queen Mother has such a soft, cuddly image; she must have had the world's best PR professionals working for her.

I don't know how true it is but my Grandad always told me that the Queen Mothers antipathy to the Duke & Duchess of Windsor had its roots in the old saying "Hell hath no Fury like a woman scorned". Apparently Queen Mary had picked Lady Elizabeth as a prospective bride for the Prince of Wales but he made it clear he wasn't interested and she had to settle for the second son.

 

[Elspeth]

When I read that the Queen Mother was quite friendly with Lady Furness while the latter was the Prince of Wales's mistress but took against Wallis Simpson because of her attitude and because it became clear that Edward wanted to marry her, I was struck by the hypocrisy of it. I mean, the idea that having a married mistress is somehow acceptable morally but marrying a divorced one isn't, is absurd. I'd have had a lot more sympathy for the Queen Mother's attitude if she'd been similarly condemnatory about the Prince's other mistresses.

Equally, I wonder what she thought about the whole Diana/Camilla business. She seems to have been a very bad enemy - a lifelong freezing-out of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor, what sounds like a subtle ongoing war with Prince Philip and Lord Mountbatten over who had more influence with the Queen, and the waging of a very nasty campaign of ostracism of the wife of her nephew the Earl after he married an Irish nurse, who found herself cold-shouldered by society and (as a result no doubt of other factors as well as that) ended up committing suicide.

 

[wymanda]

Princess Anne famously said that her Grandmother "Took no Prisoners".

 

[EmpressRouge]

I think the most generally fabled reason for the Queen Mum's apathy towards the Duchess of Windsor was that she caught Wallis aping her. That and Edward VIII abdicated just in time for George VI to face WWII, which destroyed his already poor health. But I guess the truth lies some between this and the other reasons given. It's just like people's opinions of Wallis and Diana: Some see the Windsors as star-crossed lovers, while others think Edward was foolishly selfish and Wallis just another social climber; some see Diana as a victim of a adultrous husband and mistress, while others believe her personal insecurities doomed the marriage from the beginning and her indiscretion was unforgivable. Nothing is as simple as black and white.

 

[branchg]

Well, hopefully someday soon the Queen will allow a royal biographer full access to the Royal Archives to write a definitive biography of her mother so we can learn more.

We do know the Queen Mother was very disapproving of Wallis Simpson from the very moment they first met. Most royal biographers agree, however, that she never was interested in marrying David, nor was he interested in her. She was reluctant to marry the Duke of York as she knew the heavy burden of becoming royal and the duty it would entail. Given the era and standards of the society she was raised, it is inevitable that Elizabeth would take exception to a pushy American like Wallis Simpson in the royal circle, compared with a quieter Lady Furness as a mistress.

Similarly, it seems the Queen Mother did not mind her grandson, Prince Charles, was very comfortable with his mistress, Camilla Parker-Bowles, often allowing them to use Birkhall when she was not in residence. However, she was equally adamant that the Prince and Princess of Wales not separate and remain married for the sake of the throne. She blamed Diana for failing to keep Prince Charles happy and by her side and was convinced she was "unsuitable" to be Queen Consort.

After the separation, it seems the Queen Mother began to change her tune a bit and started becoming very dismayed with her grandson's tendency to act like his Uncle David and disregard his duty to the throne. She still disliked Diana's tendency to manipulate the media and felt she was damaging the monarchy, however, she also understood Diana's importance to the monarchy and her role as the mother of a future king. After the Panorama interview, it seems the Queen Mother irrevocably changed her view of Diana as a liability who must be jettisoned completely from the royal family.

With regard to Camilla, the view of the Queen Mother was clear. She was unsuitable to be a member of the royal family and must never be allowed to marry Prince Charles. She refused to receive her privately nor would she allow Charles to discuss the matter. If she were alive today, Charles would still be single.

 

[Elspeth]

Makes you wonder what would have happened if she'd lived a normal lifespan rather than living to such a great age. It seems to be agreed by quite a lot of people that Charles wouldn't be marrying Camilla during the Queen Mother's lifetime; I just wonder what would have happened if she'd died in the late 1980s or something.

On the other hand, I don't know what she'd have done if he HAD just up and married Camilla while the Queen Mother was still alive. The Queen could have stopped the marriage, but the Queen Mother couldn't have. The influence of rich, old-fashioned, autocratic grannies really can be a problem in many families.

 

[branchg]

Well, it seems rather clear that the Queen had no intention of defying her mother's well-known views on the subject of Camilla as well. The topic was never discussed by the Queen with Prince Charles (although it was conveyed among the Private Secretaries) and she refused to consider the possibility of marriage until after the death of the Queen Mother.

It is said the Queen was even more opposed to Camilla than her mother ever was and it was only when Prince Philip convinced her she could not leave the matter in abeyance forever that she agreed it was time to face reality.

 

[Reina]

So you are saying that later the Queen Mum had a better attitude towards Diana? I totally see her point of blaming Diana for not keeping Charles happy and I can even see why she let CandC use birkhall cuz I guess every Prince of Wales has had a mistress. I kind of see it as disrespectful that Charles gave his wife some of the Queen Mum's jewels. I don't think the Queen Mum woudl like that one bit.

Hey since the Queen Mum's husband was never Prince of Wales, does that mean he did not have mistresses?

 

[Elspeth]

Well, I'm not sure I see the connection between not being Prince of Wales and not having mistresses, but there doesn't seem to be any indication that George VI had mistresses after his marriage. I doubt it was because he wasn't Prince of Wales, though.

 

[Elspeth]

Well, hopefully someday soon the Queen will allow a royal biographer full access to the Royal Archives to write a definitive biography of her mother so we can learn more.

That'll be worth waiting for! Although considering the influence she had on both the Queen and Prince Charles, I think we may have to wait a few decades for a truly objective book. Official biographies can be as biased as any other sort of biography.

 

[Reina]

I was just joking around. When i wrote this I was thinking of when Charles said that he would not be the first prince of wales w/o a mistress. It kind of seems that it is one of a prince of wales' duties to have a mistress.

Well, I'm not sure I see the connection between not being Prince of Wales and not having mistresses, but there doesn't seem to be any indication that George VI had mistresses after his marriage. I doubt it was because he wasn't Prince of Wales, though.

 

[Elspeth]

Wonder if Prince William knows...

 

[EmpressRouge]

I was just joking around. When i wrote this I was thinking of when Charles said that he would not be the first prince of wales w/o a mistress. It kind of seems that it is one of a prince of wales' duties to have a mistress.

From Joan's Mad Monarch's Series:
"The first King of Prussia, Frederick I (1657-1713), loved his second wife dearly. Nevertheless, he took a mistress because he thought it the correct thing for a monarch to do."

 

[branchg]

So you are saying that later the Queen Mum had a better attitude towards Diana? I totally see her point of blaming Diana for not keeping Charles happy and I can even see why she let CandC use birkhall cuz I guess every Prince of Wales has had a mistress. I kind of see it as disrespectful that Charles gave his wife some of the Queen Mum's jewels. I don't think the Queen Mum woudl like that one bit.

Hey since the Queen Mum's husband was never Prince of Wales, does that mean he did not have mistresses?

I don't think it was disrespectful that the Queen offered a piece of her mother's personal jewelry as an engagement ring for Camilla. The diamond ring was given to the Queen Mother by the King for their anniversary and is considered to be a private item, rather than one associated with the Queen's collection. This is in the royal tradition anyway.

The rest of Camilla's jewelry, so far from what has been seen, is either her own family's heirlooms or new pieces purchased by the Prince of Wales for her. It remains to be seen if the Queen will give Camilla a tiara from royal collection or if she will wear a new one purchased by Prince Charles.

 

[dianafan]

?What thinks you, Camilla ever queen will become??

 

[Idriel]

?What thinks you, Camilla ever queen will become??

Camilla will be Queen if Charles becomes king. Just like she is now legally Camilla, Princess of Wales, though she choose to not use this title.
Thus the question is: will she use or not the title of Queen?
IMO, Charles will do anything to make that possible.

 

[corazon]

Camilla cannot use the title of princess of Wales, if charles becomes king either will be able to use the queen title.

 

[dianafan]

what do you think, prince Charles will have ever loved princess Diana, or he its has only used for a throne continuator, I have about this my doubts!

 

[Elspeth]

Camilla cannot use the title of princess of Wales, if charles becomes king either will be able to use the queen title.

She can use the Princess of Wales title; she just has the good sense not to - I think she and Charles know how unpopular that would be. When he becomes king, she'll be queen unless there's special legislation to stop it happening.

 

[corazon]

Wallis simpons was HRH and she never can used the title. legally she was HRH.

 

[Elspeth]

Legally she wasn't, because the King issued Letters Patent conferring the title on the Duke alone, not his wife or any prospective children. It's pretty certain that it wasn't legal to do it, but it wasn't challenged at the time.