Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[jonnydep]

To confuse the matter even further, HRH The Earl of Wessex's children are not styled HRH Prince/Princess of the UK, even though under the 1917 Letters Patent, they are automatically entitled to it. Instead, they are being styled as the children of a Peer (James, Viscount Severn and The Lady Louise Windsor), rather than HRH Prince James of Wessex and HRH Princess Louise of Wessex.

to my understanding,
this was done, in view of reducing the numbers of princes / princesses within the royal family in future years.
i think i had read or heared somewhere that.......eventually it is hoped that princes within the royal family will only consist of the soveriegn siblings, the soveriegns children, the soveriegns grandchildren via the heir apparent.....etc
please correct me if i am wrong !!!!

 

[branchg]

Yes, that is what I believe the intention was in Edward and Sophie's children not using the style of HRH Prince/Princess of the UK. In the future, it is likely the rank of HRH will be limited to the children of The Sovereign, the spare to the throne and their eldest son.

But for now, the 1917 Letters Patent remain in effect unless The Queen issues fresh letters patent changing her grandfather's guidelines. So, James and Louise are indeed Prince and Princess of the UK, they just aren't using it.

 

[jonnydep]

So, James and Louise are indeed Prince and Princess of the UK, they just aren't using it.

this reminds me, of the use of titles concerning camilla, duchess of cornwall. as the wife of the prince of wales she is by law entitled to use the title princess of wales, but for what ever reason she does not choose to use it. the same will apply when she is the princess consort, when charles becomes king !!
i am correct yes......

 

[Marsel]

this reminds me, of the use of titles concerning camilla, duchess of cornwall. as the wife of the prince of wales she is by law entitled to use the title princess of wales, but for what ever reason she does not choose to use it. the same will apply when she is the princess consort, when charles becomes king !!
i am correct yes......

Camilla can choose to be known as the Duchess of Cornwall, instead of the Princess of Wales, because she holds both titles. Camilla can choose to be known under any of the titles and can be known under any of the titles she legally holds. In Scotland, for example, Charles and Camilla are known as the Duke and Duchess of Rothesay.

The situation with the Princess Consort title is completely different; once Charles becomes King, Camilla will automatically become Queen. She cannot be known or styled by the title 'Princess Consort', which is a lesser title (and she doesn't/won't hold in any case).

Camilla may be created as Princess Consort in her own right (although that would requite both Letters Patent and another Act of the Parliament), but still in order for her to be legally Princess Consort, an Act should be passed in the Parliaments of England, Scotland and each of the countries of the Realm. And unless such an Act is passed (which I think is highly unlikely), Camilla will legally be Queen Consort and will be styled as one.

I am not sure whether there is a legal loophole that would enable Camilla to be known as Princess Consort but legally be Queen Consort. I suppose technically she can choose to be known under any name (from Pocahontas to Tooth Fairy), as long as she isn't impersonating anyone. But that’s legal experts’ debate.


From a personal point of view, I find this Princess Consort thing utterly ridiculous; the wife of the King is Queen, and that’s the end of it.
I wouldn’t mind if all future spouses of the Monarch are known and styled as Prince(ss) Consorts (which would need an Act of Parliament, of course), because that would be somewhat fair. But to make an exception for one woman is not just unfair, it is simply offensive.
Much more sensible would be granting the husband of Queen Regnant the title of "King Consort", rather than demoting Queen Consorts to Princess Consorts (mind you, the husband of the female Monarch isn't even Prince Consort, with the exception of Prince Albert, Queen Victoria's husband).

 

[Elspeth]

Continuing the discussion in the Lady Jane Grey thread about whether it's possible for there to be a female Heiress Apparent (rather than Heiress Presumptive), and the scenario which makes this possible (if the heir apparent to a reigning monarch dies having left daughters but no sons, in which case the eldest daughter couldn't be displaced by any later-born royal children and would thus be Heiress Apparent), I was wondering if this means that an Heiress Apparent would be eligible to be created Princess of Wales in her own right.

From what I've been reading about the title, "Prince of Wales" can be bestowed only on the Heir Apparent. So far in history all our female monarchs were previously Heiresses Presumptive, which if I remember right is the reason why George VI refused to make Princess Elizabeth Princess of Wales. But since it's at least theoretically possible for there to be an Heiress Apparent - such as, for example, if some awful accident wiped out Charles, William, Harry, and Andrew before any of them had any more children - then I wonder if the title would be bestowed on Beatrice.

 

[H.M. Margrethe]

this reminds me, of the use of titles concerning camilla, duchess of cornwall. as the wife of the prince of wales she is by law entitled to use the title princess of wales, but for what ever reason she does not choose to use it. the same will apply when she is the princess consort, when charles becomes king !!
i am correct yes......

I think that the reason for Camilla not jusing the titel as Princess of Wales is in respect for both the late Princess Diana and her 2 children William and Harry.

 

[Marsel]

Continuing the discussion in the Lady Jane Grey thread about whether it's possible for there to be a female Heiress Apparent (rather than Heiress Presumptive), and the scenario which makes this possible (if the heir apparent to a reigning monarch dies having left daughters but no sons, in which case the eldest daughter couldn't be displaced by any later-born royal children and would thus be Heiress Apparent), I was wondering if this means that an Heiress Apparent would be eligible to be created Princess of Wales in her own right.

From what I've been reading about the title, "Prince of Wales" can be bestowed only on the Heir Apparent. So far in history all our female monarchs were previously Heiresses Presumptive, which if I remember right is the reason why George VI refused to make Princess Elizabeth Princess of Wales.

There are a lot of scenarios when a female can be Heiress Apparent, although it is certainly more common to have a male Heir Apparent.

If, for example, William were to have only one daughter and predecease his father, it would be perfectly obvious that the girl is Heiress Apparent.
However, she would not be invested as "Princess of Wales" in her own right, as the title would be inferior to her title of a Princess of the United Kingdom (as of current situation). This is because the title of "The Princess of Wales" in its female form simply does not exist; it is merely a courtesy title held by the wife of the Prince of Wales. In order for this to be changed, Legislation(s) and Letters Patent are to be introduced.

There is a scenario where Heiress Apparent would likely be invested as Princess of Wales in her own right without the need of Legislations or Letters Patent (regarding the Princess of the United Kingdom title, that is), and the title would not be inferior to the one she already holds. If William were to die, leaving sole daughter in Queen Elizabeth II's lifetime, his daughter would not automatically be Princess of the United Kingdom, as she wouldn’t be male-line grandchild of the Monarch (not that it is likely she wouldn't be created one upon or even before her birth, but it is possible she isn’t by the time of William's death). In that case, a decision might have been made to invest her as Princess of Wales, rather than grant her the style and title of the Princess of the United Kingdom. Both outcomes would require Letters Patent.

<>... So far in history all our female monarchs were previously Heiresses Presumptive... <>

There was actually a case in English History when a female was considered Heiress Apparent - Henry VIII's daughter Princess Mary. When it became apparent he will have no legitimate male Heirs from his marriage to Catherine of Aragon (and before he started having 'doubts' about the legitimacy of the marriage), Henry bestowed Mary with many of the rights and properties traditionally given only to the Prince of Wales, most importantly, the official Seal of Wales for correspondence (some of Mary's correspondence sealed with the Seal survive to this day). During that period, she was often referred to as Princess of Wales as well.
While Mary was never created the Princess of Wales, she was closest a female ever got to, and that includes the present Queen.

But since it's at least theoretically possible for there to be an Heiress Apparent - such as, for example, if some awful accident wiped out Charles, William, Harry, and Andrew before any of them had any more children - then I wonder if the title would be bestowed on Beatrice.

If some terrible accident like the one you mentioned indeed happened and a female was left as an Heiress Apparent, I believe Legislations would be passed and Letters Patent would be issued to grant her all the titles and style befitting Heiress Apparent, including the title "Princess of Wales" in her own right. The Letters Patent would have to specify that her title of the Princess of Wales would not be inferior to her title of "the Princess of the United Kingdom".
If it comes to a situation like that, then it would be only one step to adopting Equal Primogeniture, in which case a female title of "The Princess of Wales" would be created, so that the Heir(ess) Apparent of the Sovereign, regardless of gender, is invested as Prince(ess) of Wales.


That would open another issue, of course; question of the titles of the spouse of the Prince(ss) of Wales.

 

[branchg]

"Prince/Princess of the UK" are styles signifying place and precedence to The Sovereign, whether in your own right or by marriage. "Prince of Wales" is technically superior since it reflects The Principality of Wales, which is not really a Peerage, but is treated as one since it is created by The Sovereign for the male heir in his own right and takes precedence over the highest rank of Duke.

But being a plain "Prince X" is inferior to being created a Peer in the sense of being a commoner, albeit with rank and precedence that is superior to non-royal Peers. In the UK, everyone is considered a commoner unless you are The Sovereign or a Peer. This is one reason why Diana refused to accept being "HRH Princess Diana" during the divorce negotiations, as she felt it would be inferior to being "HRH Diana, Princess of Wales". As we know, she lost her royal rank but kept her royal style until she remarried.

The issue of creating an heiress presumptive "Princess of Wales" in her own right was examined when The Queen was still The Princess Elizabeth. The conclusion of the Privy Council and constitutional experts was the title was reserved for the wife of the Prince of Wales and not an heiress to the throne.

If they eventually reform succession of titles to reflect equal primogeniture, then it would make sense to allow a female heir to assume the title in her own right.

 

[branchg]

I think that the reason for Camilla not jusing the titel as Princess of Wales is in respect for both the late Princess Diana and her 2 children William and Harry.

I agree this is the sole reason for her decision. It would not have been acceptable, given that Diana was the mother of William and Harry and died with the style "Princess of Wales".

But that accomodation must end when Charles becomes King. Diana was never going to be Queen and Camilla will be the wife of The King with her own rights as Queen Consort.

 

[Marsel]

I have recently read that in a Russian book about British Royalty (which was unfortunately inaccurate on a number of issues, hence my desire to verify this doubtful matter) that all people in line for the British Throne are (or can become) British subjects, without exceptions. I find this unlikely and dubious at best.

I know of a court case filed by Ernest August IV of Hannover in 1957, when he successfully claimed a British nationality under the 1705 Sophia Naturalization Act. However, I thought that the Act was repealed by a later Act (British Nationality Act of 1948, if I am not mistaken) and in any case, concerned only the Protestant descendants of the Electress. To my understanding, Ernest August succeeded in obtaining a British Nationality only because he was born before the British Nationality Act was adopted and raised in Protestant faith.


Could one of the many knowledgeable members of this board set the record straight: can any descendant of Electress Sophia or anyone in the Line of the Succession to the British Throne automatically qualify for British citizenship?
Another question: The Sophie Naturalization Act didn’t exclusively refer to the legitimate descendants only; would that mean even illegitimate descendants of the Electress (or rather, illegitimate descendants of her descendants) would qualify for British Citizenship (assuming they were born before 1948, if the British Nationality Act canceled the Sophia Naturalization Act, as I believe it to be the case)?

 

[MAfan]

As far as I know, any person who is a descendant of Electress Sophia, born before 1948 and Protestant (all the three conditions are needed) is automatically a British Citizen.
Nothing is said about the necessity of being a legitimate descendant; the act is referred to the "issue of her body"; so I don't think that the act is valid only for the legitimate descendants.

 

[Marsel]

Thank you MAfan.
That's more or less what I thought, however the book I referred to was very clear that any descendant of the late Electress (without exceptions or restrictions) would automatically qualify, which I didn't find very plausible.
This just adds to a number of other inaccuracies in the book, mind you.

I assume that by "Protestant" faith, they don't exclusively mean the "Church of England" and other Protestant Churches would be fine as well.

 

[MAfan]

I guess that it refers to all the Protestant Churches; and I guess that its originary meaning was "not Catholic" rather then Protestant in the very meaning of the word...

 

[H.M. Margrethe]

I agree this is the sole reason for her decision. It would not have been acceptable, given that Diana was the mother of William and Harry and died with the style "Princess of Wales".

But that accomodation must end when Charles becomes King. Diana was never going to be Queen and Camilla will be the wife of The King with her own rights as Queen Consort.

Diana once said in a interwive that the one thing she realy wich to be was to be Queen of hearts nothing els.
Well let Diana be the Queen of hearts and Camilla be the Queen Consort

 

[Marsel]

I guess that it refers to all the Protestant Churches; and I guess that its originary meaning was "not Catholic" rather then Protestant in the very meaning of the word...

I think so as well. I wonder whether that would mean that Orthodox Churches would be acceptable.
Thank you for your answers, MAfan!

 

[jonnydep]

I wonder whether that would mean that Orthodox Churches would be acceptable.
/quote]

hello marsel.
i have just checked the line of succession to the british throne, and yes the ex king constantine II, asummimg he is greek orthodox, is listed has being number 428 (when that version was issued (2001) , today his place may have altered due to recent deaths etc).

so i think that should answer your question, and i will check for the russian factor for you, as i feel your question was more aimed at the russian orthodox church then the greek ?

update.
yes grand duchess maria v and her son george , is listed as 111 and 112 in line of succession (again as of 2001). i am asumming that both are russian orthodox !!!

a interesting note is that the "offical" (as published by buckingham palace) line / order of succession to the british throne only lists the first 100 individuals. can anyone please tell us why this is so ?

 

[MAfan]

Yes, Orthodoxes can be in the line of Succession, but are they referred to by the Sophia Naturalization Act 1705? I fear not.

 

[Marsel]

Yes, Orthodoxes can be in the line of Succession, but are they referred to by the Sophia Naturalization Act 1705? I fear not.

Technically, the Line of the Succession is discriminative only towards the Catholics. However, I don't think the Sophia Naturalization Act 1705 covered the Orthodox Churches as well. A really shrewd lawyer could probably prove that the 'Protestant' in the Act meant 'non-Catholic' though.

i have just checked the line of succession to the british throne, and yes the ex king constantine II, asummimg he is greek orthodox, is listed has being number 428 (when that version was issued (2001) , today his place may have altered due to recent deaths etc).

so i think that should answer your question, and i will check for the russian factor for you, as i feel your question was more aimed at the russian orthodox church then the greek ?

update.
yes grand duchess maria v and her son george , is listed as 111 and 112 in line of succession (again as of 2001). i am asumming that both are russian orthodox !!!

Thank you for the information, jonnydep.
I was indeed more interested whether the Russian Orthodox Church would qualify as 'Protestant' mentioned in the Sophia Naturalization Act 1705.

a interesting note is that the "offical" (as published by buckingham palace) line / order of succession to the british throne only lists the first 100 individuals. can anyone please tell us why this is so ?[

I suppose only the first 100 are listed because there are few circumstances under which anyone would need to know the names of anyone further down the line of the succession. I think at one point, the official website listed only the first 20 people in the Line of the succession.

It's only those interested in genealogy and succession issues (like the members of the Royal Forum), who would ever like or need to know other people in the Line of the Succession and their claims.

 

[MAfan]

Well, only the first 39 people are members of the present British Royal Family; only the first 54 are descendants of King Geore V, and nly the first 84 are descendants of King Edward VII, including the members of a present Royal Family (Norway). Then starts the long list of all the other people (1600 ca) who have rights to the British Throne, belonging to all the other european Royal Families, less or more. And all this list is quite useless, I don't think that one day we need a King whose position is n. 813 in the Line of Succession, for example...

 

[jonnydep]

another interesting note, is that i have just read the following

" the sovereign must, in addition, to be in communation with the church of england and must swear to preserve the established church of england (and that of scotland) and uphold the protestant line of succession".

does this mean that if a greek or russian orthodox were to succeed to the british throne, they may have to renounce that faith and covert to the established church of england to be sovereign ........ ?.

one must remember that the sovereign is also the head of the church.
it would seem a little odd that the head of the church is a member of the greek / russian orthodox church !!!!!.

another question i have is concerning camilla, duchess of cornwall.

whlist married to her former husband andrew parker- bowles, whom is a catholic, did she convert over to his faith, and if so, did she (on her divorce) covert back to the church of england ? .

the reason i ask, should be odivous..........

 

[MAfan]

I guess she is Anglican; something like Prince Michael, who has married a Catholis but who is Anglican...But Camilla's first marriage is ended in a divorce, and here is the problem: a future head of the Anglican Church (that refuses the divorce) who is married to a divorced woman...
About your first question, it seems that this person has to convert...

 

[jonnydep]

yes, i understand, anything after the first 100 shown in the line of succession would be rather academic !!!

thank you marsel and mafan........

 

[branchg]

I guess she is Anglican; something like Prince Michael, who has married a Catholis but who is Anglican...But Camilla's first marriage is ended in a divorce, and here is the problem: a future head of the Anglican Church (that refuses the divorce) who is married to a divorced woman...
About your first question, it seems that this person has to convert...

Camilla remained Anglican during her marriage to Parker-Bowles, so there was no issue there. The Church now recognizes divorce and remarriage, so there was no obstacle to Charles and Camilla marrying, especially since Charles was considered to be a widower, rather than a divorcee, in the eyes of the Church.

The matter was a political one, in terms of whether the Government was prepared to consent to it. Since the public was willing to accept it, Blair and the Archbishop of Canterbury both gave their approval.

 

[MAfan]

Did they really need the consent of the Government? Not only the consent of the Queen and/or of her Privy Council?

 

[Osipi]

does this mean that if a greek or russian orthodox were to succeed to the british throne, they may have to renounce that faith and covert to the established church of england to be sovereign ........ ?.

one must remember that the sovereign is also the head of the church.
it would seem a little odd that the head of the church is a member of the greek / russian orthodox church !!!!

This brings up an interesting thought that I found earlier on this illustrious forum. Somewhere it has been stated that one thought of the Prince of Wales when he accedes the throne was thinking he'd prefer the title of "Defender of Faiths" rather than Defender of the Faith. I think this would be due to the fact that the UK (as anywhere else) is a global community as far as practices of faith go.

About Camilla and faith. I believe she stayed with her Angelican faith but upon marriage to APB promised that their children would be raised Catholic.

 

[Osipi]

I agree this is the sole reason for her decision. It would not have been acceptable, given that Diana was the mother of William and Harry and died with the style "Princess of Wales".

Another reason is that I've come to realize Camilla is also a woman of grace and class in that she realizes its not whatever title and style she is known by, but her duty and actions that reflect on her husband the Prince of Wales and King Charles in the future. She's a very down to earth person and in that respect I think she's alot like HM.

 

[wbenson]

Did they really need the consent of the Government? Not only the consent of the Queen and/or of her Privy Council?

The government is a subset of the Privy Council (I believe the cabinet is actually a committee of the council), and they are the only members of the Privy Council who give constitutional advice to the Queen on a day-to-day basis, so getting consent from the Privy Council is the same as getting consent from the government.

 

[branchg]

Did they really need the consent of the Government? Not only the consent of the Queen and/or of her Privy Council?

The Queen could not have granted her consent without taking advice from the Privy Council, which constitutionally she must do. But the important consent would be The Prime Minister's after taking soundings in the Cabinet and the Commons.

 

[Lady Meg]

Descent of Titles

Question - once a person either refuses or doesn't claim their title.. what happens? Can a family member descended from them step up and claim it years later? If not, does it become extinct or passed on to another close descendant i.e. another sister/brother?

 

[MAfan]

The title will be not used during the lifetime of the person who refused it, and after his death the title will be inherited by his closest male relative.