Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Iluvbertie]

How the Russians/Greeks/Danes etc referred to those who married into their families is irrelevant to the titles that a British woman would hold as each court or royal house has its own rules.


The British rules are very clear:


A Princess of the UK who is born with that title uses her own name


A married in Princess, even if a Princess in her own right in another country, uses the title of her husband - so Princess Alice of Hesse after she married was Princess Andrew of Greece and Denmark but in the UK was Princess Andrew as was Princess Marina of Greece and Denmark who was The Duchess of Kent in the UK and then with special permission only allowed to use Princess Marina after she was widowed - a courtesy also extended to Alice of Gloucester but not to the Queen's own mother-in-law.


That means that a woman who marries a Prince with no peerage is Princess Husband's name while a woman who marries a Prince with a peerage would use the peerage title.


What many Americans don't 'get' is the idea that Princess is actually a lower title than that of Duchess because they don't understand that a Prince can be either a commoner or a peer (Harry is a commoner for instance while William is now a peer).

 

[Rudolph]

Yes , that is correct. My daughter is Samantha Muller, she was born a Muller but my wife is Mrs Rudolph Muller , not Karen Muller because she is a married woman that's the correct style for a married woman. Old fashioned I know but that's the British tradition.

 

[Rudolph]

@Iluvbertie A Princess of the UK is one who is born with that title or uses her husband's titular dignity of Prince under common law

The rest you say is correct

 

[AdmirerUS]

What many Americans don't 'get' is the idea that Princess is actually a lower title than that of Duchess because they don't understand that a Prince can be either a commoner or a peer (Harry is a commoner for instance while William is now a peer).

Iluvbertie: I'm starting a charity here in the US to provide funding for all of us who care to have this tattooed on our forearms. Thanks for saying it, once again. Disney has corrupted us all.

 

[Rudolph]

For those who think Kate isn't a princess, a small but overlooked fact is Kate signs as 'Catherine', the prerogative of a British Princess

Iluvbertie: I'm starting a charity here in the US to provide funding for all of us who care to have this tattooed on our forearms. Thanks for saying it, once again. Disney has corrupted us all.

Its because the title of prince/ss is strictly a courtesy. William as a peer holds a substantive title in his own right and under the old rules would be eligible to hold a seat in the House Of Lords, unlike Prince Harry who is a commoner under the rules prior to 1999

 

[Molly2101]

For those who think Kate isn't a princess, a small but overlooked fact is Kate signs as 'Catherine', the prerogative of a British Princess

She isn't a Princess. All the Royals just sign their Christian name as they have no need for a surname. That doesn't make her a Princess - she isn't one in her own right. The British royals dont do that.

 

[Rudolph]

I suggest you read the documents concerning the status of the Duke of Edinburgh back in the 50's, the Garter King of Arms points out that the Duke signs as 'Philip' and points out this is the prerogative of a British Prince

 

[Molly2101]

I suggest you read the documents concerning the status of the Duke of Edinburgh back in the 50's, the Garter King of Arms points out that the Duke signs as 'Philip' and points out this is the prerogative of a British Prince

That may be so but legally that still doesn't make her British princess. We dont call her Princess Catherine do we? No therefore she isn't a princess. She is a Princess by marriage but isn't allowed to use the style of Princess Catherine - the only ones who can are Alexandra, Anne, Beatrice, Eugenie and Louise.

 

[Rudolph]

She is a Princess, If you don't want to think of her as such thats fine but we have a little thing called common law that says Catherine is a Princess and she signs accordingly

 

[Lumutqueen]

She is a Princess, If you don't want to think of her as such thats fine but we have a little thing called common law that says Catherine is a Princess and she signs accordingly

What exactly does she sign as a Princess?
It's not a matter of "thinking of her as such". She isn't, she's a Princess by marriage not by birth. End of story.

 

[Rudolph]

And my wife is a Muller by marriage, your point?


Its funny, no one disputes Kate is a peeress, no one dispute the fact she's a Royal Highness but no sir is she a princess. Princess William is the correct form for a married woman, not Princess Catherine

 

[Molly2101]

She is a Princess, If you don't want to think of her as such thats fine but we have a little thing called common law that says Catherine is a Princess and she signs accordingly

It's not that I don't think of her as one I just know she isn't technically a Princess. I never thunk of her as princess Catherine. Just signing her Christian name doesn't make her a Princess. If the royals were to sign their full name they would be there for a long time!

 

[Rudolph]

From The Evening Standard, Feb. 8, 1957, p. 10.

Thus the Duke, who signs as Philip, the prerogative of a Prince, has vindicated the name, by which the man in the street has always called him.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Kate is a Princess. She is the wife of a prince and thus a princess. In the UK though Princess is a lower styling than that of Duchess. All wives take the styles and titles of their husbands so a Prince's wife is a Princess.


The best way to explain what happens is to look at the titles of The Duchess of Gloucester.


When she married her Prince - Prince Richard of Gloucester - she became Princess Richard of Gloucester and was known by that title. No doubt she became a Princess as her title said so. When her husband inherited the Dukedom she rose with him from Princess to Duchess but she didn't stop being a princess just as her husband didn't stop being a Prince.


The only British wife who uses Princess is Princess Michael of Kent - a princess definitely as that is her title but why only a Princess - because her husband has nothing better to give her.


Kate is a Princess of the UK - by marriage - but one nevertheless. However, if the marriage ends in divorce then she will lose that position as Diana and Sarah did before her.


There are two types of Princesses in the UK -


a) those by birth - Anne, Beatrice, Eugenie and Alexandra
b) those by marriage - Camilla, Kate, Sophie, Brigitte, Katherine and Marie-Christine

 

[Lumutqueen]

Thank you iluvbertie, it's a shame you've had to repeat the analogy twice as it didn't seem to sink it.

 

[Noble Consort Ming]

Kate is a Princess of the UK - by marriage - but one nevertheless. However, if the marriage ends in divorce then she will lose that position as Diana and Sarah did before her.

Didn't Diana and Sarah keep their courtesy titles after their divorces? They only lost their HRHs. Diana was knows after her divorce as Diana, Princess of Wales and Sarah is known as Sarah, Ducess of York. This is the way it seems to be done with the ex-wives of peers.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Yes they kept there courtesy titles but they didn't remain princesses of the UK as that was part of the HRH styling that was specifically stripped from them by Letters Patent.


The Queen couldn't take away the right to use their married titles as a courtesy as she didn't have that right but she could remove the HRH and along with it the Princess status by issuing LPs as the HRH Princess bit came via the 1917 LPs.


Diana and Sarah stopped being Princesses but were allowed to continue, as all divorced women are, to use their married styling but in a changed form. From HRH The Princess of Wales and HRH The Duchess of York to Diana, Princess of Wales and Sarah, Duchess of York.


It isn't just ex-wives of peers who can continue to use their married style on divorce any wife can do so but there is also a change there. During a marriage a wife is technically Mrs John Smith but on divorce she becomes Mrs Jane Smith - the Mrs and Smith remains but returning to the use of her own first name is a sign that she is divorced.

 

[Ish]

Thank you iluvbertie, it's a shame you've had to repeat the analogy twice as it didn't seem to sink it.

This fact has been repeated so many times in this thread that I've lost count.

 

[Roslyn]

It isn't just ex-wives of peers who can continue to use their married style on divorce any wife can do so but there is also a change there. During a marriage a wife is technically Mrs John Smith but on divorce she becomes Mrs Jane Smith - the Mrs and Smith remains but returning to the use of her own first name is a sign that she is divorced.

Yes, on divorce she gets her own individual identity back. But this is custom, not law. A woman who marries John Smith does not have to be known as Mrs John Smith; she can choose to remain known by her own name.

The reason for a woman becoming known as Mrs John Smith - or HRH Princess Michael of Kent, etc. - on marriage is rooted in history. English Common Law provided that on marriage a woman's legal personality was subsumed within that of her husband. They become one single legal person, and that person was the husband. The wife no longer existed as an individual with the rights of an individual. She essentially became an item of her husband's property and he could sue anyone who caused damage to her that affected his enjoyment of that item of his property. On marriage all a woman's personal possessions became the husband's property, and he acquired the right to use any land she owned or inherited and to have the rents and profits from that land, and was also entitled to the proceeds of any paid work she performed.

This legal concept of a married couple being one legal personality is the reason why a wife could not sue her husband for personal injury sustained due to his negligent driving of a motor vehicle as late as the 1960s in NSW.

Married Women's Property legislation and other legislation has put paid to this common law position, and now a woman can be known by whatever name she chooses. A woman who marries a peer, or a prince, does not have to be known by the style and title that identifies her as his wife. She can keep her own name. Is is merely custom, not law, that provides otherwise.

 

[LauraS3514]

She is a Princess, If you don't want to think of her as such thats fine but we have a little thing called common law that says Catherine is a Princess and she signs accordingly

On Prince George's birth certificate Catherine is listed as "Princess of the United Kingdom."

 

[Rocketmom]

Is it custom in the U.K. for women NOT to take their husband's name? I notice in pictures of Peter Phillips and his wife that she is referred to as Autumn Kelly, just like people still refer to Catherine as Kate Middleton. I know Autumn doesn't have a title since Peter doesn't but I thought she'd probably take the last name Phillips. Or is it a backhanded attempt to be insulting since both ladies were commoners?

 

[cepe]

Is it custom in the U.K. for women NOT to take their husband's name? I notice in pictures of Peter Phillips and his wife that she is referred to as Autumn Kelly, just like people still refer to Catherine as Kate Middleton. I know Autumn doesn't have a title since Peter doesn't but I thought she'd probably take the last name Phillips. Or is it a backhanded attempt to be insulting since both ladies were commoners?

Neither. It's to do with sticking with the 1st known name and to facilitate internet searches.

IT is not custom in the UK for women not to take their husbands name. Many women keep their single name for business reasons but use their married name for other purposes. Good example is Zara Tindell. She uses PHillips professionally.

Autumn Kelly is Mrs Peter Phillips (formally)

 

[Iain]

Is it custom in the U.K. for women NOT to take their husband's name? I notice in pictures of Peter Phillips and his wife that she is referred to as Autumn Kelly, just like people still refer to Catherine as Kate Middleton. I know Autumn doesn't have a title since Peter doesn't but I thought she'd probably take the last name Phillips. Or is it a backhanded attempt to be insulting since both ladies were commoners?

In Scotland a woman does not legally take her husband's name and retains her maiden name. It is common to see on tombstones inscriptions such as

MARGARET CAIRNS​

beloved wife of​

ROBERT FRASER

​

Although it is common for a couple to be known by the husband's name the wife will still be known by her own name among friends.​

 

[Danish girl]

A friend asked me what would happen with the Cambridge title should both William and George die? I had no answer.
Would Harry get it?

 

[tommy100]

Won't it return to the crown once William becomes King?

 

[Arrjann]

A friend asked me what would happen with the Cambridge title should both William and George die? I had no answer.
Would Harry get it?

Don't think so. I think the title will merge with the crown in that scenario. I think the title is created for William and his descendants. Same reason why the future George V did't become Duke of Clarence and Avondale after the death of his elder brother.

 

[Ish]

A friend asked me what would happen with the Cambridge title should both William and George die? I had no answer.

Would Harry get it?

The title will become extinct. Only the male-line descendants of William can inherit the title. Right now, George is the heir apparent to the title and has no heir himself. If Baby Cambridge 2 is a boy then he will be his brother's heir presumptive.

Of course, the title isn't expected to pass on. When William becomes King his Dukedom will merge with the crown, and be available for use again (similar to how the title Duke of York merged with the crown when George VI became King).

 

[Danish girl]

Won't it return to the crown once William becomes King?

Possibly. But that was not the question...

What would happen to the title should both William and George die before Charles and the Queen?

 

[Ish]

Possibly. But that was not the question...



What would happen to the title should both William and George die before Charles and the Queen?

The title will become extinct - no one will have it. It will only merge with the crown when William becomes King (or George, if William dies before his becoming King).

 

[Arrjann]

Possibly. But that was not the question...

What would happen to the title should both William and George die before Charles and the Queen?

It will become extinct and thus merge with the crown.