Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Rudolph]

The bottom line with styles and titles is this, it's entirely at the Queen's will and pleasure. The constitution gives her free reign. Royal prerogative falls outside the jurisdiction of the courts. There is no such thing in Britain as being 'legally' a Prince/ss or a Royal Highness. It can't be defended in a court of law

Letters patent seem to be an issue with some, but letters patent is just one example of the Sovereign's will and pleasure. More importantly, the sovereign isn't bound by letters patent issued by a former monarch.

Simply put, its a matter of royal prerogative and how the Queen expresses her pleasure is irrelevant

 

[yvr girl]

If the Countess of Wessex had another son would he come before or after Louise in the line of succession? He would be born after the change in laws but Louise was born before.

 

[Roslyn]

The bottom line with styles and titles is this, it's entirely at the Queen's will and pleasure. The constitution gives her free reign. Royal prerogative falls outside the jurisdiction of the courts. There is no such thing in Britain as being 'legally' a Prince/ss or a Royal Highness. It can't be defended in a court of law

Letters patent seem to be an issue with some, but letters patent is just one example of the Sovereign's will and pleasure. More importantly, the sovereign isn't bound by letters patent issued by a former monarch.

Simply put, its a matter of royal prerogative and how the Queen expresses her pleasure is irrelevant

What constitution? What piece of legislation or convention gives the monarch "free reign"? Parliament makes the laws. The Royal Prerogative is subject to the laws made by Parliament.

Letters patent are legal instruments granting rights or status. I am unable to think of a situation where it might arise, but I see no reason why the rights/status granted in respect of a title or style could not be enforced or defended in courts of law. Perhaps someone else can think of an example or precedent.

 

[Roslyn]

If the Countess of Wessex had another son would he come before or after Louise in the line of succession? He would be born after the change in laws but Louise was born before.

Section 1 of the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 provides:

1. Succession to the Crown not to depend on gender

In determining the succession to the Crown, the gender of a person born after 28 October 2011 does not give that person, or that person’s descendants, precedence over any other person (whenever born).

Louise would not be displaced.

 

[Rudolph]

What constitution? What piece of legislation or convention gives the monarch "free reign"? Parliament makes the laws. The Royal Prerogative is subject to the laws made by Parliament.

Letters patent are legal instruments granting rights or status. I am unable to think of a situation where it might arise, but I see no reason why the rights/status granted in respect of a title or style could not be enforced or defended in courts of law. Perhaps someone else can think of an example or precedent.

In absence of statute , common law applies. The common law has evolved as such that royal prerogative governing royal styles and titles is at the pleasure of the sovereign, without ministerial advice

The Law Officers of The Crown stated at the time of the Duke of Windsor -

"the right to use this style or title, in our view, is within the prerogative of His Majesty and he has the power to regulate it by Letters Patent generally or in particular circumstances", their view of the "undoubted powers of the Sovereign from time to time to determine the ambit within which the style and title of Royal Highness should be enjoyed"

 

[Iluvbertie]

If the Countess of Wessex had another son would he come before or after Louise in the line of succession? He would be born after the change in laws but Louise was born before.

Highly unlikely that a woman in her early 50s would have another child but ... if any more legitimate children are born to Andrew or Edward they wouldn't replace the girls in he line of succession but they would be in the line to inherit their father's titles while the daughters wouldn't.

To give a hypothetical example:

Andrew remarries a woman in her 30s who gives him a son. That son would be behind Eugenie in the line of succession to the Crown as he was born after October 2011 which is the date from which the change in the succession laws took effect but would be the heir to York and would one day become The Duke of York. A younger legitimate child of Edward's would be known as Lord xxxx Mountbatten-Windsor and be behind Louise in the line of succession.

 

[LauraS3514]

Highly unlikely that a woman in her early 50s would have another child but ... if any more legitimate children are born to Andrew or Edward they wouldn't replace the girls in he line of succession but they would be in the line to inherit their father's titles while the daughters wouldn't.

To give a hypothetical example:

Andrew remarries a woman in her 30s who gives him a son. That son would be behind Eugenie in the line of succession to the Crown as he was born after October 2011 which is the date from which the change in the succession laws took effect but would be the heir to York and would one day become The Duke of York. A younger legitimate child of Edward's would be known as Lord xxxx Mountbatten-Windsor and be behind Louise in the line of succession.

Not quite: if Edward were to have another son, and they follow the precedent of only using the titles of an (ordinary) Earl's children, that son would be "The Honourable X Mountbatten-Windsor" as an Earl's younger sons are mere "Honourables." All sons of Dukes and Marquesses are "Lord X Lastname" and the eldest also may use a subsidiary title if one exists. A bigger question would be if Andrew remarries and has a son would he use the HRH like his sisters or just be "Earl of Inverness?"

 

[Iluvbertie]

Not quite: if Edward were to have another son, and they follow the precedent of only using the titles of an (ordinary) Earl's children, that son would be "The Honourable X Mountbatten-Windsor" as an Earl's younger sons are mere "Honourables." All sons of Dukes and Marquesses are "Lord X Lastname" and the eldest also may use a subsidiary title if one exists. A bigger question would be if Andrew remarries and has a son would he use the HRH like his sisters or just be "Earl of Inverness?"

Edward, being a prince however, changes that to Lord in the same way that Prince Michael's son is Lord Frederick Windsor (1917 LPs give the sons of Princes the style of Lord if they aren't Princes).

Andrew would probably want his son to be Prince but I suspect that the Queen would pre-empt and issue the same instructions as has happened with Edward's children and he would be the Earl of Inverness.

 

[Roslyn]

In absence of statute , common law applies. The common law has evolved as such that royal prerogative governing royal styles and titles is at the pleasure of the sovereign, without ministerial advice

The Law Officers of Crown stated at the time of the Duke of Windsor -

"the right to use this style or title, in our view, is within the prerogative of His Majesty and he has the power to regulate it by Letters Patent generally or in particular circumstances", their view of the "undoubted powers of the Sovereign from time to time to determine the ambit within which the style and title of Royal Highness should be enjoyed"

OK. I get it now. You're only talking about the monarch's personal prerogative power to grant approval for certain uses of royal names and titles, not royal prerogative generally.

Attitudes to the royal prerogative/s have changed since the 1930s though and I woudn't be surprised if HM took advice from ministers before issuing letters patent in respect of the titles and styles of members of her family, even if she didn't have to.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Edward, being a prince however, changes that to Lord in the same way that Prince Michael's son is Lord Frederick Windsor (1917 LPs give the sons of Princes the style of Lord if they aren't Princes).

Only the grandchildren of the sovereign's sons in the male line, and Edward's children are children of the sovereign's son.

Now Know Ye that We of our especial grace certain knowledge and mere motion do hereby declare our Royal Will and Pleasure that the children of any Sovereign of these Realms and the children of the sons of any such Sovereign and the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales 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 or with their other titles of honour And We do further declare our Royal Will and Pleasure that save as aforesaid the style title or attribute of Royal Highness Highness or Serene Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess shall not henceforth be assumed or borne by any descendent of any Sovereign of these Realms excepting always any such descendant who at the date of these Letters Patent holds or bears any right to any such style degree attribute or titular dignity in pursuance of any Letters Patent granted by Ourselves or any of Our Royal Predecessors and still remaining unrevoked it being Our Royal Will and Pleasure that the grandchildren of the sons of any such Sovereign in the direct male line (save only the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales) shall have and enjoy in all occasions the style and title enjoyed by the children of Dukes of these Our Realms

The announcement on the Earl's wedding day was:

The Queen has also decided, with the agreement of The Prince Edward and Miss Rhys-Jones, that any children they might have should not be given the style His or Her Royal Highness, but would have courtesy titles as sons or daughters of an Earl.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

That decision "with the agreement of The Prince Edward and Miss Rhys-Jones" does not take away that formally his son is HRH Prince James of Wessex and his daughter is HRH Princess Louise of Wessex. They are known as Lord James, Viscount Severn and Lady Louise, that does not take away their formal position.

The same with Camilla, who is formally HRH The Princess of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay and a whole train of titles, but is known as The Duchess of Cornwall.

 

[Rudolph]

The Queen has also decided, with the agreement of The Prince Edward and Miss Rhys-Jones, that any children they might have should not be given the style His or Her Royal Highness, but would have courtesy titles as sons or daughters of an Earl.

When it comes to the Queen's family, these are the only words that matter. Her Majesty is free to style the members of her family in whatever way she pleases. She can expand or limited the style at her pleasure. It is not done on the advice of Parliament but solely at the Queen's will and pleasure.

How she expresses her will and pleasure is immaterial. There is no ambiguity in the press release from BP. They are not royal highnesses

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

When it comes to the Queen's family, these are the only words that matter. Her Majesty is free to style the members of her family in whatever way she pleases. She can expand or limited the style at her pleasure. It is not done on the advice of Parliament but solely at the Queen's will and pleasure.

How she expresses her will and pleasure is immaterial. There is no ambiguity in the press release from BP. They are not royal highnesses

It needs an Act of Parliament to overturn a Letters Patent. A press release by Buckingham Palace is in no way sufficient to modify the Letters Patent of 1917.

For the title and style of Princess Patricia of Connaught, after her marriage, a Letters Patent was issued.

For the title and style of Ms Wallis Simpson, after her marriage, a Letters Patent was issued.

For the title and style of Lieutenant Philip Mountbatten, after his marriage, a Letters Patent was issued.

For the titles and styles of Lady Diana Spencer and Ms Sarah Ferguson after their divorces, a Letters Patent was issued.

Such a Letters Patent was the establishment of a general rule. It is clear that the Queen uses Letters Patent to make changes to royal titles. The fact that no Letters Patent were issued in the case of James and Louise is significant. The British Monarchy's official website puts it this way: "The couple decided, with The Queen's agreement, that their children would use the courtesy titles as sons or daughters of an Earl rather than the style Prince or Princess."

For me this is convincing: the Letters Patent of 1917 are in full force and the two are only "known as" by choice of their parents. When the parents become HRH The Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh, they are no longer sons or daughters of an Earl. It is possible that the titulature will be re-thought and that the two children maybe will become known as HRH Prince James of Edinburgh and HRH Princess Louise of Edinburgh.

 

[Osipi]

As with all things that are done by HM, the statement stating that Edward would, upon his marriage, become the Earl of Wessex and any children would be known as children of an Earl with the intention of Edward being created The Duke of Edinburgh as time passes reflects foresight. This family plans far ahead and the announcement made leaves avenues wide open for things that may happen decades after the issuing date. One would be that James and Louise themselves, upon becoming adults, may wish to serve in a royal capacity and even be sorely needed. Then again they may not.

"Known as" and "styled" is what strikes me most as far as James and Louise goes.

 

[Rudolph]

An Act of Parliament is only required to modify Letters Patent regarding peerages. Different things are getting conflated.

Under the umbrella of British styles and titles, is royal styles and titles. That's what is being discussed with Louise and James.

Being a royal highness doesn't mean anything. It carries with it no legal entitlements. For this reason royal prerogative allows the sovereign to change this style as she pleases. I don't know any other way to state it.

To put it bluntly, the only advantage to being a royal highness is that you get to call yourself a royal highness. Its a great pick-up line in a bar but it just denotes a degree of relation to the sovereign. Nothing more.

The general rule of thumb is this, group conferrals of royal titles are usually done by Letters Patent. The 1917 Letters Patent and the 1996 Letters Patent are examples of group conferrals. Both were done without the advice of parliament.

The history of granting of royal titles to individuals is a a little different. In the Queen's reign she has done it with Letters Patent, she has done it via the Court Circular (in the case of The Duchess of Gloucester) and she has done it via press release as in the case of Louise and James.

If the Queen wanted to, she could issue a press release tomorrow stating that Peter Phillips is to be styled as a royal highness and prince of the UK of GB & NI and that would be it. Peter would be a prince. She doesn't have to ask the Prime Minister, she doesn't have to have Letters patent drawn up. She just makes it officially known and that's it.

She can just as easily issue a press release tomorrow stating James, Viscount Severn will be styled as a royal highness and a prince of the UK of GB & NI. Again that's it.

Lets look at the late Duchess of Gloucester. No Letters Patent were ever issued creating her a princess in her own right but the first Court Circular reference to her as Princess Alice Duchess of Gloucester is on the 13 July 1974, when she and her son and daughter-in-law attended a memorial service for her husband at Peterborough Cathedral. She is similarly described in the Court Circular of 23 July, when she attended a memorial service for her husband at Westminster Abbey. So it's clear The Queen made her decision to create her a princess between the death of The Prince Henry on 9 June and this first reference on 13 July.

That's it. The Queen made her will and pleasure known via the Court Circular. No one could say to the Queen, "Ma'am, just so you know, Alice really isn't a princess because you didn't issue Letters Patent"

The Queen is the only person in the realm who decides such matters.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, all I mentioned above applies to royal styles and titles but not to peerages. The constitutional convention is they can only be created by Letters Patent on the advice of the government. Once created, a peerage can then only be modified by an Act of Parliament. Two separate issues.

The Queen can issue a press a release regarding James' style but she needed to use Letters Patent to make Edward an earl. A press release wouldn't have been sufficient.

 

[VictoriaB]

Odd that People insist on incorrectly referring to the Duchess of Cambridge as "Princess" Kate but to Camilla as Duchess when they both have the same style.

 

[Countessmeout]

Odd that People insist on incorrectly referring to the Duchess of Cambridge as "Princess" Kate but to Camilla as Duchess when they both have the same style.

It seems a common trait among the royal brides. Kate: Princess Kate, Duchess Kate, Kate Middleton. Camilla either gets her correct title or Camilla Parker-Bowles (often when her and Kate are said to be feuding). Diana was Princess Di. Not sure why Camilla is never called Princess Camilla by anyone. Maybe because of the negative link between her and Diana, and the emphasis on calling her Duchess of Cornwall and not Princess of Wales??? Of course they should be Princess William and Princes Charles if you were to use that title.

 

[Skippyboo]

Maybe because when she married Charles she wasn't 20 something. Kate and Diana fit the young woman marrying a Prince to become a Princess fairytale. Camilla marrying Charles after being the mistress in her late 50s isn't really the stereotype.

Plus with Britain not using Princess Women's First Name, it makes it ripe for wrong titles to be used. Mary Donaldson marries Prince Frederick becomes Princess Mary. If she married William it isn't Princess Mary but Hrh Duchess of Cambridge. It's way more simple if you just become Princess Own First Name.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Dman]

Maybe because when she married Charles she wasn't 20 something. Kate and Diana fit the young woman marrying a Prince to become a Princess fairytale. Camilla marrying Charles after being the mistress in her late 50s isn't really the stereotype.

Plus with Britain not using Princess Women's First Name, it makes it ripe for wrong titles to be used. Mary Donaldson marries Prince Frederick becomes Princess Mary. If she married William it isn't Princess Mary but Hrh Duchess of Cambridge. It's way more simple if you just become Princess Own First Name.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

The Princess title just don't fit Camilla, but it's highly possible that the title HRH The Princess Consort is around the corner.

Sorry, don't have much to do about her patronages. Back to topic.

 

[duchessrachel]

I have been a member here for 5 years but only have recently gotten more active. I have searched for an answer to my question on here as I suspect it has already been answered, but I can't find it. I will ask it but if it has already been asked, forgive me. What I want to know is: Did Prince William want Kate to have the title "Princess" when they married? I read that somewhere but it could have been just one of the gossip rags.

 

[Osipi]

I have been a member here for 5 years but only have recently gotten more active. I have searched for an answer to my question on here as I suspect it has already been answered, but I can't find it. I will ask it but if it has already been asked, forgive me. What I want to know is: Did Prince William want Kate to have the title "Princess" when they married? I read that somewhere but it could have been just one of the gossip rags.

She does have the title of Princess. Princess William. As Wills was created a Duke at the time of his marriage, its what they use as their styles. The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. If he wasn't given a dukedom, Kate most likely would be referred to as Princess William like Princess Michael of Kent is styled. Females do not gain the use of their first names in their titles and styles other than through divorce. Diana, Princess of Wales and Sarah, Duchess of York are styles denoting they were at one time married to a peer.

In fact, when registering the birth of Charlotte (I believe), William listed his wife's occupation as Princess of the UK.

Hope this helps.

 

[HRHHermione]

She does have the title of Princess. Princess William. As Wills was created a Duke at the time of his marriage, its what they use as their styles. The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. If he wasn't given a dukedom, Kate most likely would be referred to as Princess William like Princess Michael of Kent is styled. Females do not gain the use of their first names in their titles and styles other than through divorce. Diana, Princess of Wales and Sarah, Duchess of York are styles denoting they were at one time married to a peer.

In fact, when registering the birth of Charlotte (I believe), William listed his wife's occupation as Princess of the UK.

Hope this helps.

Yup, for both Charlotte and George, Catherine's occupation was listed as Princess of the UK


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

 

[Dman]

I don't know why people find it hard to understand that Catherine is a Princess of the United Kingdom due to her marriage to a Prince of the United Kingdom. It's just that she's referred to by her official title.

The article about her stepping up her work is pretty much about to happen anyway. It's a natural progression of her royal role.

 

[duchessrachel]

When I say "title" of Princess, what I mean is "Princess Catherine". I know that it is not correct to refer to her as "Princess Catherine". I was of the understanding that her rank is Princess, but that her title is not "Princess Catherine". I know that it is "Princess William". I thought that William had asked for her to be titled "Princess Catherine". Here is the article I am referring to:
Royal wedding: Prince William asks the Queen not to make him a duke - Telegraph
I don't know if there is any truth to it or not. That is what I am wondering.

 

[Osipi]

When I say "title" of Princess, what I mean is "Princess Catherine". I know that it is not correct to refer to her as "Princess Catherine". I was of the understanding that her rank is Princess, but that her title is not "Princess Catherine". I know that it is "Princess William". I thought that William had asked for her to be titled "Princess Catherine". Here is the article I am referring to:
Royal wedding: Prince William asks the Queen not to make him a duke - Telegraph
I don't know if there is any truth to it or not. That is what I am wondering.

I get where you're coming from now and I seem to recall something along these lines back when the wedding was being planned.

It just doesn't work that way though and its one area where William didn't get what he supposedly wanted (along with wearing his dress RAF uniform for the wedding). Some things you just don't mess with.

 

[Skippyboo]

General News and Information for the Duchess of Cambridge

I would take that Telegraph article with a grain of salt. William knew long before he met Kate that he wasn't going to remain as Prince William. He gains titles as he becomes heir to the throne and British Princes have been given dukedoms for several generations now.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Lumutqueen]

General News and Information for the Duchess of Cambridge

When I say "title" of Princess, what I mean is "Princess Catherine". I know that it is not correct to refer to her as "Princess Catherine". I was of the understanding that her rank is Princess, but that her title is not "Princess Catherine". I know that it is "Princess William". I thought that William had asked for her to be titled "Princess Catherine". Here is the article I am referring to:
Royal wedding: Prince William asks the Queen not to make him a duke - Telegraph
I don't know if there is any truth to it or not. That is what I am wondering.

She can only become Princess Catherine if HM grants her a title in her own right. Catherine receives all her titles from William.
It is something rare and I believe only been done twice.

 

[wartenberg7]

She ´s not "Princess Catherine", yet she is a "Princess of the United Kingdom and N Ireland"! It´s confusing but that´s the way it is!
And she´s NOT "Princess William"! That she would have been if William wouldn´t have been made a Duke of Cambridge. But he is, so Catherine is a royal Duchess, Princess of the UK and NI.

 

[Skippyboo]

She is still Princess William even with the Duchess of Cambridge title because William is still Prince William at the same time he is Duke of Cambridge. Camilla is Princess Charles, Sophie is Princess Edward etc. It just not their primary title. The Queen is the Duchess of Edinburgh too but she isn't being addressed as that.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Mbruno]

When I say "title" of Princess, what I mean is "Princess Catherine". I know that it is not correct to refer to her as "Princess Catherine". I was of the understanding that her rank is Princess, but that her title is not "Princess Catherine". I know that it is "Princess William". I thought that William had asked for her to be titled "Princess Catherine". Here is the article I am referring to:
Royal wedding: Prince William asks the Queen not to make him a duke - Telegraph


I don't know if there is any truth to it or not. That is what I am wondering.

If Wiiliam had married a princess in her own right, e.g Madeleine of Sweden, then, after marrying him, she would have been known as HRH Princess Madeleine, Duchess of Cambridge, rather than "Princess William".