Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Roslyn]

The most they could do is not use their titles in everyday life. They can't stop being princesses, because they're the daughters of a prince. They could move to the 'back of beyond', where no-one knew where they were, never tell anyone who they were, and they'd still be princesses.

Beatrice is only a princess because it was George V's royal will and pleasure that she, and others meeting the requirements set out in the 1917 Letters Patent, "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". The royal style and title is treated as part of her identity and her name, however she can renounce her right to that style and title and change her name by deed poll. She would then no longer be a princess. She's unlikely to thumb her nose at her family that way, but I believe she could.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Even if she changed her name by deed poll or some other way it wouldn't change her being a Princess of the UK as she is a male line descendant of a monarch and thus, under the 1917 LPs is a Princess. She can stop using that name but without new LPs or an official statement from The Queen stripping her of that title it is hers and there is nothing she can do about it. She doesn't have to use it but, like the Duchess of Kent who doesn't use HRH The Duchess of Kent as her day to day name, she would still be a Princess.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Thanks for your reply. I wasn't thinking of the legalities so much. I was thinking of how someone always retains an essence of who their parents are/were. This has been my experience, at least.

 

[Roslyn]

Even if she changed her name by deed poll or some other way it wouldn't change her being a Princess of the UK as she is a male line descendant of a monarch and thus, under the 1917 LPs is a Princess. She can stop using that name but without new LPs or an official statement from The Queen stripping her of that title it is hers and there is nothing she can do about it. She doesn't have to use it but, like the Duchess of Kent who doesn't use HRH The Duchess of Kent as her day to day name, she would still be a Princess.

It might be hers, but she can reject it and refuse to acknowledge being bound by it. All these letters patent and other expressions of the monarch's will only have effect if people recognise them as being rules they have to accept and abide by. They are not laws, just the monarch's will. If you don't consider yourself bound by the monarch's will, what the monarch wills doesn't bind you. It is only tradition.

Yes, I know my argument is tenuous, but I maintain that - save anything that actually passes into legislation - what the monarch says or does is only effective if it is recognised, and if the person who has the benefit of the monarch's royal will and pleasure in respect of a personal nature such as this, doesn't want that gift and actively rejects it, then it doesn't apply to them.

 

[Osipi]

Now I have a question. We all know that should Beatrice and Dave get engaged and married that titles will not be passed down through Beatrice's bloodline as the equal primogeniture law has been established only for the succession of the Crown.

What do you think the chances are of The Queen offering a dukedom to Dave on his marriage to Beatrice? If that doesn't happen, any children they would have would end up being Miss, Ms. or Mr. Clark.

 

[VictoriaB]

Now I have a question. We all know that should Beatrice and Dave get engaged and married that titles will not be passed down through Beatrice's bloodline as the equal primogeniture law has been established only for the succession of the Crown.



What do you think the chances are of The Queen offering a dukedom to Dave on his marriage to Beatrice? If that doesn't happen, any children they would have would end up being Miss, Ms. or Mr. Clark.

I'd say Buckley's chance.

Didn't Mark get offered an Earldom? I can't see the Queen offering a title to her grandson-in-law higher than the one she offered her son-in-law and brother-in-law.

I can't recall if Angus Ogilvy was offered a title on marriage to Princess Alexandra but he certainly didn't accept and remained the Hon only. There's no difference between the position of Alexandra & Beatrice.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

 

[Roslyn]

Now I have a question. We all know that should Beatrice and Dave get engaged and married that titles will not be passed down through Beatrice's bloodline as the equal primogeniture law has been established only for the succession of the Crown.

What do you think the chances are of The Queen offering a dukedom to Dave on his marriage to Beatrice? If that doesn't happen, any children they would have would end up being Miss, Ms. or Mr. Clark.

I cannot imagine that any such offer will be made to Dave. Beatrice is a born royal Princess and HRH, yet the indications are her services will not be needed as a full or even part-time working royal, so why would her husband be given a dukedom merely for marrying her? As things currently stand, she would be known as HRH Princess Beatrice, Mrs Clark. I think.

Dave's situation is analogous with that of The Hon. Angus Ogilvy who was offered an earldom when he married Princess Alexandra back in 1963. Ogilvy rejected it. Alexandra was a working royal and her incoming husband was only offered an earldom. Their children were only Mr and Miss Ogilvy.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I am wondering whether, having seen the succession to the crown become gender blind whether The Queen might issue new LPs to Andrew's title to allow for female inheritance of the York title in lieu of sons?


Currently the remainder is 'heirs male of the body' but that could easily be changed to 'heirs male of the body, in lieu of heirs male, heirs female'.

It might be hers, but she can reject it and refuse to acknowledge being bound by it. All these letters patent and other expressions of the monarch's will only have effect if people recognise them as being rules they have to accept and abide by. They are not laws, just the monarch's will. If you don't consider yourself bound by the monarch's will, what the monarch wills doesn't bind you. It is only tradition.

Yes, I know my argument is tenuous, but I maintain that - save anything that actually passes into legislation - what the monarch says or does is only effective if it is recognised, and if the person who has the benefit of the monarch's royal will and pleasure in respect of a personal nature such as this, doesn't want that gift and actively rejects it, then it doesn't apply to them.

One example we have of that is the Duchess of Kent - Katherine Kent in her day to day life but officially the monarch of the day ignores that and always has her referred to by her royal title HRH The Duchess of Kent.


Another example would be the way that the Dukes of Cumberland and Albany lost their titles in 1917. The only way they could lose their British titles and styles was by the passing of the Titles Deprivation Act - an Act of Parliament. Even so the parliament could only strip the then holders of their titles but not remove the title itself from the families who still have the right to apply to have them restated. As these titles were created via LPs they are a good example of the way to remove titles created by LPs - that is via legislation. George V, removed the HRHs, HHs and HSHs of some of his family with his 1917 LPs which is the only other way to remove these titles and styles.

Beatrice can stop calling herself Princess but that doesn't mean she isn't still a Princess. The legal situation in the UK is that titles and styles are recognised and the only two ways to get round them have been mentioned - legislation or the issuing of new LPs. Even when the first 'lord' said he didn't want to accept that title so he could continue to sit in the House of Commons the way the permission was granted still meant that he really did hold the title - his right to not use it was recognised and the inheritance rights of his son were recognised.

 

[Roslyn]

Katherine Kent is, however, married to a peer. I consider that HM insults Katherine by ignoring her wishes on the subject.

Beatrice is a commoner and her title is a personal one, only. There are no inheritance rights in issue with respect to any children of hers, so if she wants to renounce her status, she would be able to do so, in my opinion. Of course HM would ignore her wishes on the subject, too. Not that we have any indication that Beatrice is ever likely to renounce her royal status.

 

[Iluvbertie]

To not refer to HRH The Duchess of Kent with that title is to make the marriage morganatic as the wife takes the titles, styles and ranks of her husband and to do otherwise makes the marriage unequal.


Beatrice can opt to not use the title BUT it would take legislation or new LPs to strip her of that title - based on the clear precedence of the 20th C.


The only way it has happened is via that route and not other way is possible.


Beatrice simply can't say 'I am no longer a Princess'.

 

[Roslyn]

To not refer to HRH The Duchess of Kent with that title is to make the marriage morganatic as the wife takes the titles, styles and ranks of her husband and to do otherwise makes the marriage unequal.

By this reasoning, to not refer to HRH The Princess of Wales with that title would be to make the marriage morganatic, too. Camilla is addressed by her lesser title in the CC and, therefore, by HM. Exceptions are made where it suits HM to do so.

Beatrice can opt to not use the title BUT it would take legislation or new LPs to strip her of that title - based on the clear precedence of the 20th C.


The only way it has happened is via that route and not other way is possible.


Beatrice simply can't say 'I am no longer a Princess'.

Beatrice can simply say, 'I am no longer a Princess', or 'I do not wish to be a Princess any longer and I will no longer be including that (title/style/whatever it is, strictly speaking) as part of my name', and her grandmother and/or uncle can respect her wishes if it suits them. If they abided by her wishes and ceased referring to her that way I bet everyone else would, too.

 

[Osipi]

By this reasoning, to not refer to HRH The Princess of Wales with that title would be to make the marriage morganatic, too. Camilla is addressed by her lesser title in the CC and, therefore, by HM. Exceptions are made where it suits HM to do so.

Not exactly. Charles does hold the title Duke of Cornwall and Camilla uses the feminine version. The Prince of Wales may be Charles' primary title and denotes him as the heir apparent but the title of Duke of Cornwall is the title he's held the longest and also denotes him as the heir apparent.

Anyways, back to Beatrice as conversations about titles and what could be are off track of current events. Perhaps the title discussions could continue in the appropriate threads?

 

[Iluvbertie]

By this reasoning, to not refer to HRH The Princess of Wales with that title would be to make the marriage morganatic, too. Camilla is addressed by her lesser title in the CC and, therefore, by HM. Exceptions are made where it suits HM to do so.

Not quite - Charles is also Duke of Cornwall - a title he has held for as long as The Queen is Queen. Camilla is thus using one of his titles and thus also taking his rank as HRH.

Beatrice can simply say, 'I am no longer a Princess', or 'I do not wish to be a Princess any longer and I will no longer be including that (title/style/whatever it is, strictly speaking) as part of my name', and her grandmother and/or uncle can respect her wishes if it suits them. If they abided by her wishes and ceased referring to her that way I bet everyone else would, too.

No she can't.

It would take legislation to strip her of the title or new LPs to strip her of the title.

She doesn't have to use the title but she can't stop being a Princess on her own say so.


She can use one of the lower titles - Lady Beatrice Mountbatten-Windsor as the daughter of a Duke or Miss Beatrice Mountbatten-Windsor as a girl but that won't stop her being Princess Beatrice of York.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

[...]
Dave's situation is analogous with that of The Hon. Angus Ogilvy who was offered an earldom when he married Princess Alexandra back in 1963. Ogilvy rejected it. Alexandra was a working royal and her incoming husband was only offered an earldom. Their children were only Mr and Miss Ogilvy.

Angus himself was son of the 12th Earl of Airlie, and brother to the 13th Earl. It seems Angus refused the title because he was a second son to a Peer, knowing that the bulk of the estate would go to his eldest brother. He had to concentrate fully on making an own career. In those days having an Earldom still very much meant living the lifestyle of an Earl. Something Angus was (financially) not able to do.

Regarding future titles for Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie: in 1919 another granddaughter of a Sovereign, Princess Patricia of Connaught, had married the younger son of the 13th Earl of Dalhousie, the Hon Alexander Ramsay. On that occasion she had relinquished her royal titles, being known as Lady Patricia Ramsay.

On the other hand, in 1961, shortly before Princess Margaret's son was born, her husband Antony Armstrong-Jones accepted a peerage (the Earldom of Snowdon and the Viscounty Linley). So there are still differences.

The relinquishing of Princess Patricia and the refusal of Angus Ogilvy have set the present pattern whereby there was no question of Princess Anne's husbands being ennobled. The husbands of Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie will need to have a title of their own. They will not be offered one, looking at this history.

 

[Roslyn]

No she can't.

It would take legislation to strip her of the title or new LPs to strip her of the title.

She doesn't have to use the title but she can't stop being a Princess on her own say so.


She can use one of the lower titles - Lady Beatrice Mountbatten-Windsor as the daughter of a Duke or Miss Beatrice Mountbatten-Windsor as a girl but that won't stop her being Princess Beatrice of York.

She can definitely say it. Whether it would be effective as far as her family and/or the general public is concerned is another thing altogether. But if she doesn't want to be HRH Princess Beatrice of York, she doesn't have to refer to herself that way. She can call herself Ms Beatrice York if she wishes, and, if she does, she's as much Ms Beatrice York as she is HRH Princess Beatrice York, and more so if that's the way she identifies herself everywhere. It's a question of identity. She's an adult. She can have a driver's licence and mortgage and educational and professional qualifications and everything else issued in the name she chooses, and she can sign her marriage certificate with that name.

If she were so inclined, and I'm not saying she is, for the rest of her life she never need use the style and title "HRH Princess" if she doesn't want to.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

She can definitely say it. Whether it would be effective as far as her family and/or the general public is concerned is another thing altogether. But if she doesn't want to be HRH Princess Beatrice of York, she doesn't have to refer to herself that way. She can call herself Ms Beatrice York if she wishes, and, if she does, she's as much Ms Beatrice York as she is HRH Princess Beatrice York, and more so if that's the way she identifies herself everywhere. It's a question of identity. She's an adult. She can have a driver's licence and mortgage and educational and professional qualifications and everything else issued in the name she chooses, and she can sign her marriage certificate with that name.

If she were so inclined, and I'm not saying she is, for the rest of her life she never need use the style and title "HRH Princess" if she doesn't want to.

She can follow Princess Patricia's example and being styled as Lady Beatrice Mountbatten-Windsor (after marriage Lady Beatrice Clark). After all her cousins Princess Louise and Prince James of Wessex are also known as Lady Louise and Lord James Mountbatten-Windsor.

 

[Osipi]

She can follow Princess Patricia's example and being styled as Lady Beatrice Mountbatten-Windsor (after marriage Lady Beatrice Clark). After all her cousins Princess Louise and Prince James of Wessex are also known as Lady Louise and Lord James Mountbatten-Windsor.

James is also known as Viscount Severn too. Eventually the Wessex children will be the children of a Duke if things go as has been expressed for the Duke of Edinburgh title with James eventually inheriting the title himself from his father making him the 2nd Duke of Edinburgh.

Being daughters of a monarch's child, both Beatrice and Eugenie will be the last of their bloodline to carry a HRH or a title unless they marry a peer and/or the monarch grants their husbands a peerage.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

James is also known as Viscount Severn too. Eventually the Wessex children will be the children of a Duke if things go as has been expressed for the Duke of Edinburgh title with James eventually inheriting the title himself from his father making him the 2nd Duke of Edinburgh.

Being daughters of a monarch's child, both Beatrice and Eugenie will be the last of their bloodline to carry a HRH or a title unless they marry a peer and/or the monarch grants their husbands a peerage.

That is correct. When nothing happens, James, the present Viscount Severn, will become the 2nd Earl of Wessex as only heir of the male body of the present Earl. When -according to plan- his father will become the 1st Duke of Edinburgh of a new creation, he will become the Earl of Wessex as heir to his father's Dukedom. But still we will have to see: will he be known as HRH The Earl of Wessex (to which he is entitled) or as James Mountbatten-Windsor, Earl of Wessex (like his far-away cousins the Alexander Windsor, Earl of Ulster and George Windsor, Earl of St Andrews). After all, James is already not known with his rightful title (Prince) and is not addressed accordingly his correct rank (HRH).

 

[royal-blue]

But Andrew has never wanted that; I read he insisted his daughters have the HRH and full status, and has always tried to keep them close to the Queen.
I can't imagine he'd ever want them to give that up.

I realise they are princesses by birthright but this is what seems so unfair. They are being made to be in the public eye and are being prevented from being able to live private lives despite having no royal role.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I realise they are princesses by birthright but this is what seems so unfair. They are being made to be in the public eye and are being prevented from being able to live private lives despite having no royal role.

It also is to 'blame' on the Princesses themselves. They go to fancy parties, to trendy clubs, attend fashion shows, make posh travels and are seen with celebbies here and famousies there. They are not exactly living the life of a lady to the manor born, being busy with the herbal garden and rearing the sick foal with a big bottle of milk, before joining the Countryside Ladies' Club and discussing fancy fairs to finance the restoration of the stained glass windows of the local parish church...

It is easy to blame it on them being a HRH or having a royal title. It is also how someone can live a life outside the media frenzy in the capitals of the world.

 

[Andy T]

I don't think the York title will be made gender blind, in retrospect at least.

"Vacant" Dukedoms are few in number and will be needed for members of the family who are very near to the throne: further children of William & Kate and potentially a Prince Consort somewhere down the line. The Dukedom of York is traditionally attributed to a second son (for example Andrew, George VI, George V, Frederick). As Prince Andrew holds it at the moment, Harry will probably end up being Duke of Sussex or Duke of Clarence, and I imagine that it'd be the title given either to William's second son, if he has one, when he marries, assuming, of course, that Prince Andrew is no longer around by then or to Prince George's second child if Prince Andrew is as long-lived as his parents.

If the current trend of restricting titles and slimming down of the British Royal family continues, the whole idea of hereditary dukedoms for younger children of the monarch may well disappear, being replaced with life peerages, in my opinion. However, it seems most likely to me that the Duke of York's daughters will be known by their HRH Princess ..... titles, à la Princess Alexandra.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Maybe the British Court can follow the example set by Princess Alexandra:

HRH Princess Alexandra, (The Hon.) Mrs Angus Ogilvy
HRH Princess Beatrice, Mrs David Clark
HRH Princess Eugenie, Mrs James Brooksbank

Of course the oldfashioned dude in me hopes on a marriage with someone from royalty or aristocracy: for an example George Percy, Earl Percy (the son of the Duke of Northumberland). She will then become:

HRH Princess Beatrice, Countess Percy

I don't know what happens when her husband inherits the Dukedom, will the couple be:

His Grace The Duke of Northumberland and Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Northumberland

or

His Grace The Duke of Northumberland and Her Royal Highness Princess Beatrice, Duchess of Northumberland

or

Their Graces The Duke and Duchess of Northumberland

?

 

[Lumutqueen]

I don't think the British public would have too much of an issue with them not doing royal duties but not loosing their title if Beatrice, mainly, chose something to do and did it. Eugenie is rarely seen in the papers unless at an event once in a while or with family. I think if Beatrice was allowed to inherit her fathers title life would have been a lot easier after university because she would have gone straight into The firm.

 

[Roslyn]

Maybe the British Court can follow the example set by Princess Alexandra:

HRH Princess Alexandra, (The Hon.) Mrs Angus Ogilvy
HRH Princess Beatrice, Mrs David Clark
HRH Princess Eugenie, Mrs James Brooksbank

Why should the York girls completely lose their identities on marriage? Why should their identities be subsumed within those of their husbands? If they are to retain their royal styles and titles, can't they at least be HRH Princess Beatrice Clark and HRH Princess Eugenie Brooksbank? Coverture no longer exists in British society, so if they do choose to take their husbands' surnames, shouldn't they at least be able to retain their own identities and not just be the female extension of the male entity, denied the right to even use their own first name?

 

[Mirabel]

Personally, I have never understood why someone wouldn't want a title, royal or otherwise.

If nothing else, you'd get a better table in a restaurant.

I recently read a (contemporary) book where the protagonist was titled, but seldom used it- except when he wanted to call someone he didn't know personally. The title meant he was always put through.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

[...] If they are to retain their royal styles and titles, can't they at least be HRH Princess Beatrice Clark and HRH Princess Eugenie Brooksbank? [...]

Impossible:

She can be styled in so many ways:

HRH Princess Beatrice of York (nothing changes)

HRH Princess Beatrice, Mrs David Clark (á la Princess Alexandra of Kent)

Lady Beatrice Clark (á la Princess Patricia of Connaught)

Mrs David Clark

Ms Beatrice Clark

Etc.

HRH Princess Beatrice Clark or HRH Princess Eugenie Brooksbank are impossible. It is not allowed to connect a surname or a territorial designation to a royal or aristocratic title. When Marie-Christine Freiin von Reibnitz married HRH Prince Michael of Kent she did not become Princess Marie-Christine von Reibnitz, impossible. It indicates a princely rank attached to the House of Reibnitz and that is not the case.

 

[Molly2101]

That is correct. When nothing happens, James, the present Viscount Severn, will become the 2nd Earl of Wessex as only heir of the male body of the present Earl. When -according to plan- his father will become the 1st Duke of Edinburgh of a new creation, he will become the Earl of Wessex as heir to his father's Dukedom. But still we will have to see: will he be known as HRH The Earl of Wessex (to which he is entitled) or as James Mountbatten-Windsor, Earl of Wessex (like his far-away cousins the Alexander Windsor, Earl of Ulster and George Windsor, Earl of St Andrews). After all, James is already not known with his rightful title (Prince) and is not addressed accordingly his correct rank (HRH).

I think if we started referred to James (and Louise) as HRH's it would be disrespectful of their parent's wishes. Edward and Sophie did not want their children to be royal, whether it was their legal title or not, so for people to start referring to them as their rightful title is I feel rude. I think it's great that the Wessex children are not using their HRH style as it saves them from the debate that Beatrice and Eugenie get because they are Princesses who do not work for the RF, thus people believe they are "hangers on".

I think if Beatrice and Eugenie both decided to drop their HRH style, the press would still call them Princess simply because it's what they are used to.

 

[Queen Camilla]

I agree the people that want to strip Beatrice of her title cannot wait to give Harry and his future kids a title.

Why strip Beatrice and Eugenie of their titles but give Harry a dukedom?

Why promote Edward to a duke?

Why make William's children prince and princess?

These are sexism. Remove the title from the women but hand them over to the men.

 

[janjan]

The only reason why ann children have no title is because Ann turned it down Best remarks she made is my children don't need to have a Royal title just because they have a Grandmother who is a queen I want my children to make there own way in the world Maybe Andrews kids should take note

 

[Lumutqueen]

The only reason why ann children have no title is because Ann turned it down Best remarks she made is my children don't need to have a Royal title just because they have a Grandmother who is a queen I want my children to make there own way in the world Maybe Andrews kids should take note

Anne didn't turn a title, Mark did. If Mark had accepted a title, Peter would have been his heir and Zara would have been Lady Zara. Andrew had no choice in the matter, his title and his childrens titles are governed by birth and law. It's not Beatrice and Eugenie's fault they were born to the son of a monarch rather than the daughter. A decision should have been made between The Queen and Andrew when both girls turned 18, as to what they should do. Full time royal, part time royal, or major events and their own job. It's very clear that this wasn't established and Beatrice is confused. Eugenie has clearly taken the decision upon herself and settled in the US.