Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Lumutqueen]

If Charles couldn't get rid of his POW title, how come Edward could get rid of his King title?
He wouldn't be the heir apparant, so he would at least have no right to keep it.

 

[Warren]

Edward "got rid of" his Kingly position and title through an Act of Parliament.

 

[ladongas]

Someone has been reading here!

Here's a link to an interesting interview with the editor of Debrett's.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/peer-pressure-before-the-royal-wedding-some-tutelage-on-british-titles/2011/03/22/AF9qKSYB_story.html

"There are Americans who know all of this stuff, who own copies of Debrett’s or its competitor Burke’s, who go on message boards and pooh-pooh the people who refer to Princess Diana, when there was never a Princess Diana.While she and Prince Charles were married, her correct title was Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales; after their divorce, she was styled Diana, Princess of Wales. (Right now — right now — these same people are annoyed that I didn’t note that Prince Edward might have chosen the title of Earl of Wessex because he will likely also inherit the dukedom of Edinburgh from his dad.)"

 

[Iluvbertie]

If the editor of Debrett's really said the Edward is likely to 'inherit the dukedom of Edinburgh from his dad' then he needs a lesson in inheritance laws - Edward's chances of inheriting the Edinburgh title are rather slim as it will require all of Charles, William, any sons of William, Harry without legitimate male issue and Andrew all to predecease Philip and/or The Queen - so that Beatrice, or a daughter of William's or Harry's inherits the throne - but the Edinburgh title can still be in existance to be 'inherited' by Edward - the expectation is that at some point it will merge with the Crown and then be re-created for Edward.

 

[melissaadrian]

Try reading the article. It is some American journalist. She quotes the Debrett's guy, but says he makes no sense, and dumbs it down by quoting an American author instead. She comments that all the actual titles are taken, so they just 'invent' new titles, like Edward's from Shakspeare in Love. She compares Lord Snowdon to Madonna, saying he goes by Snowdon and nothing else. That they will just invent some crazy new name for Katherine and William.

The woman in the quote above was bitching about being attacked on forums like this. That she had got jumped on about mentioning the proper way to address Diana, and that she forgets to mention Edward is Earl of Wessex because it is intended for him to be Duke of Edinburgh.

She goes on to say that people like us act as know it alls, to lord it over stupid Americans, who don't understand the traditions.

And to be honest I can admit she may be right with some. I had heard about Edward becoming Duke of Edinburgh. I assumed he'd inherit the title from his dad. It wasn't until I got older, and did research, I realized it had to merge with the crown with Charles, and then be recreated. Not everyone is a royalty fanatic, and makes honest mistakes.

But the article is a joke, a woman who seems extremely perterbed at being corrected on sites like this.

 

[Kataryn]

The author in question was Kitty Kelley, who is said in the article to be "Washington-based" - isn't she British? I know she is author of a rather scandalous book about the Windsors which is not only sleazy in parts but contains a lot of made-up claims which are, of course, negative.

Not the person I would ask to be my "Expert".

 

[Iluvbertie]

Try reading the article...

I did read the article - many times in fact before making my post and having read the article about six times I am still not clear who made the comment at issue - the editor of Debrett's - who is quoted at times, Kitty Kelley - who is also quoted (and should know better given the supposed research she has done in writing her book on the Windsors) or the writer of the article itself, Monica Hesse.

Having read and re-read the passage I wasn't sure who said what, which is why I used the word 'IF'

Considering that some parts have "quotation marks" and others haven't I am not sure whether the parts out of quotes are just being there because they were too lazy to put them in again or whether those bits are supposed to be by Ms Hesse herself (the passage in question doesn't have any quotation marks - which could indicate Ms Hesse).

 

[Iluvbertie]

Ketty Kelley is quoted at times but so is Mr Kidd, the editor of Debrett's.

Both of these two should have some idea - Kelley based on the research she allegedly did on her book on the Windsors (which simply repeated every scandal ever affecting the family) and Mr Kidd - whose very position would rest on it.

 

[Zonk]

I wouldn't have a book written by Kitty Kelley in my house. She is not a good author in my book (I know who cares what Zonk thinks). Her sources are questionable.

First of all, the Snowdon being referred to his first name, like Madonna! What nonsense. I think the article is very tongue in cheek, somewhat sarcastic. I mean she has to bring up the late Duke of Clarence possibly being Jack the Ripper. Not mentioning of course, that I believe this theory has been disproved some time ago. So she isn't looking to write a legtimate article.

I can't imagine Mr. Kidd getting it wrong about the title for Edward and the future of the Duke of Edinburgh title. Moreso the author didn't understand or tried to edit her notes. But hey, anything is possible I guess.

 

[sproketti]

I think the article is very tongue in cheek, somewhat sarcastic. I mean she has to bring up the late Duke of Clarence possibly being Jack the Ripper. Not mentioning of course, that I believe this theory has been disproved some time ago. So she isn't looking to write a legtimate article.

I read this article from the actual newspaper while having breakfast the other morning. It was in the Style section which is for show business and entertainment articles. It was definitely supposed to be light-hearted reading. It made *me* laugh, at any rate. I think it did capture the intimidated feeling Americans sometimes get when faced with anything they feel is properly British, or at least sounds that way, which I think is why we see a lot of infomercial hosts on TV these days that use British accents.

 

[PrincessKaimi]

I feel like I'm going in circles. There were some questions about styles and titles on another thread, I thought the posts were moved over here, and on this thread, there's a discussion about Kitty Kelly.

Perhaps I need to go back a few pages.

I went back, and find the topic somewhat derailed. No matter, it will come up again.

 

[Susanna Wynne]

I add a big "you go girl" to Zonk! She is so right about Kitty Kelley. Garbage in, garbage out! And, unfortunately, a lot of Americans gobble that stuff up. I have a subscription to Tatler and am struck by the difference in coverage of the upcoming wedding than you find in People (which seems actually a lot better than some). I picked up a copy in an airport yesterday and thought how much more we who use the forum know than even the mainstream papers and magazines like People do. And it seems also that they are somewhat behind the information curve.

I've lived in England so am more informed than many of my countrymen, but that's not a criticism of my fellow Americans. My criticism is leveled at the Kitty Kelley's of this world who write sensationalist faux-journalism.

 

[PrincessKaimi]

How could someone be a Prince of the Realm if only his wife was styled by courtesy HRH? When would that ever happen? Is there an example of it (Maybe I would understand, then).

But let me try and get one part straight. A person can have a title, such as Princess, and not be HRH, but which could be granted as a courtesy? (Am I anywhere close?)

The Queen is automatically HRH, right? Who else is automatically HRH, if anyone? I would think the Prince of Wales, the Princess Royal, at minimum. Again, am I getting it at all?

The title HRH is not always by courtesy, then (if it belongs automatically to the Queen).

But to whom, other than the Queen, does it belong automatically, I guess is my question. Maybe the answer is simple!

 

[Iluvbertie]

The 1917 Letters Patent of George V determine who is automatically and HRH. Under those LPs the current HRH's are:

Charles, Andrew, Edward, Anne - children of the monarch

William, Harry, Beatrice, Eugenie, Louise, James, Richard of Gloucester, Edward of Kent, Michael of Kent, Alexandra of Kent - male-line grandchildren of the monarch (although Louise and James aren't using it).

The wives of any of the above.

Note Anne's children, like Margaret's and Mary's (George V's daughter) don't get it because they are female line grandchildren.

The only other HRH in Britain is Philip who was given the title by special LPs in 1957.

The main reason for giving the men Dukedoms was to stop them being able to stand for election to the House of Commons by giving them a seat in the House of Lords but that reason has now gone - yes all the members of the royal family except for the Queen can vote and stand for election (but they don't).

 

[Royal_Eagle]

Just a minor correction, if I may? DoE was granted the HRH as well as the Dukedom of Edinburgh, etc when he married then Princess Elizabeth. However he never got the Prince of the Realm title until 1957, even though people thought he was a prince before then (due to some confusion over the grant of HRH and that he previously was a Prince (of Greece and Denmark))

 

[Iluvbertie]

Of course - I should have made that clearer - HRH of the UK in 1947 with his Dukedom but 'The Prince of the UK' in 1957.
He is the exception to the 1917 LPs, which is what I meant and didn't make clear - thanks for that clarification.

To be clear to everyone else:

Philip - born 1921 - as HRH Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark
sometime in 1947 renounced Greek and Danish titles - although no documents have ever been produced
November 1947 - created HRH The Duke of Edinburgh
1957 - created The Prince Philip of the UK

People often say that George VI didn't know that he hadn't created Philip a Prince but there is a report that somewhere at either Balmoral or Sandringham a courtier recorded Philip's presence as Prince Philip and George VI crossed out the work 'Prince'.

 

[AnnEliza]

And the Queen is HM, Her Majesty, not HRH, though she was HRH before her accession to the throne.

 

[Kataryn]

Just a minor correction, if I may? DoE was granted the HRH as well as the Dukedom of Edinburgh, etc when he married then Princess Elizabeth. However he never got the Prince of the Realm title until 1957, even though people thought he was a prince before then (due to some confusion over the grant of HRH and that he previously was a Prince (of Greece and Denmark))

The point is that the British only accept their own Royalty as HRH when they are British citizens. All other Royals are foreigners and are of course awarded their rank as long as they don't want to become British citizens.

So Philip of Greece and Denmark was HRH as long as he was a Greek citizen. But when he applied for British citizenship, he lost his style. As he only applied for British citizenship in order to marry Elizabeth, he got his rank back. His cousin Katherine, HRH Princess of Greece and Denmark wanted to become a British citizen (and subject) on marrying a British subject. She was given letters patent so she, while not a HRH in Britian, was considered the "daughter of a duke"when it came to precedence and the style "Lady Katherine". Outside of the Uk, especially in Denmark, she of course was still HRH Princess Katherine of Greece and Denmark. In the Uk she was Lady Katherine with the quite elevated rank of the daughter of a duke.

 

[PrincessKaimi]

I think I'm getting it. So the automatically created HRH's are one group, and the by courtesy HRH's are another group.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I think I'm getting it. So the automatically created HRH's are one group, and the by courtesy HRH's are another group.

I don't know what you mean by 'by courtesy HRH's'?

I can't think of anyone who is an HRH 'by courtesy'.

The LPs state that the children, male line grandchildren, eldest son of the eldest son and the wives of male HRH's are all automatically HRH.

The only one who doesn't meet that criteria was Philip who was created an HRH by his future father-in-law in November, 1947 and a Prince by his wife in 1957.

Camilla, Sophie, Brigitte, Katherine and Marie-Christine (Princess Michael) all gained HRH automatically on marriage - and would lose it just as automatically on divorce according to the LPs issued in August 1996 (when Diana divorced Charles, but interestingly enough months after Sarah and Andrew divorced).

Kate Middleton will be HRH automatically she says 'I Do', William says 'I Do' and the Archbishop proclaims them 'man and wife' (or whatever term he uses on the day e.g. husband and wife).

 

[branchg]

I think I'm getting it. So the automatically created HRH's are one group, and the by courtesy HRH's are another group.

The children and male-line grandchildren of The Sovereign are automatically HRH Prince/Princess of the UK by right of birth because they are in lineal succession to the throne. This is a courtesy style reflective of their royal rank and precedence, outranking hereditary Peers of the Realm who are titled, because they are closer to the throne in their own right.

Their wives, consistent with common law and practice in the Peerage, automatically enjoy the status, style and rank of their husbands, which means they automatically become HRH Princess of the UK upon marriage. If their husbands are created Peers, their wives then take their titles as the wife of a Peer (i.e. The Countess or Duchess of X) but with royal rank as HRH.

Males do not share their wives' rank, so in the case of Philip, he was granted his own title with royal rank by George VI before marrying The Queen. This was mainly done to ensure The Princess Elizabeth was marrying a man of equal rank who was not a commoner (i.e. HRH The Duke of Edinburgh). Once she was The Sovereign, she issued Letters Patent elevating Philip to the style and rank of a Prince of the UK in 1957.

The style and rank of "HRH Prince/Princess of the UK" is a courtesy title. Anyone who is not The Sovereign or a Peer is a commoner in the UK. They enjoy this style and rank as a personal honour, whereas a Peerage is hereditary and eventually loses royal rank when it passes to the great-grandchild of a Sovereign.

 

[PrincessKaimi]

Can you explain a bit more about Peerage? There are royal and not royal Peers, right? (I feel so stupid and I know I've read the answer before, but until one applies it frequently to particular cases, it doesn't make sense).

Can someone give examples of non-royal Peers? Those remain hereditary forever? (But just not entitled to the style of royal, right?) Can they be passed to females - but then end since she cannot give the title to her spouse?

 

[Iluvbertie]

A non-royal peer would be someone like the Duke of Marlborough or Duke of Wellington. Both of these titles started as rewards for service to the country and monarch in wars. They were never held by members of the royal family.

There are two types of peerages though. The ones above are hereditary but there are also life peerages that end with the current holder. Most older titles are hereditary to males only.

Some titles have, at times, allowed for female inheritance - the Mountbatten title in particular - but that was because at the time it was created Lord Mountbatten only had daughters and really no chance of having a son so it was created with a remainder that allowed for inheritance to pass to his daughters but after his eldest daughter the remainder is normal in male only (until or unless there are no males from the eldest daughter in which case the younger daughter's line of male descendents can claim).

Royal peers include The Duke of Cornwall, The Duke of Edinburgh, The Duke of York, The Earl of Wessex, The Duke of Gloucester and The Duke of Kent. Except for the Duke of Cornwall title all of these have the normal 'male heirs of the body' remainders and thus can only be inherited by the male line.

The Duke of Cornwall title will always be a royal dukedom as it requires the holder to be both the eldest son of the monarch and the heir to the throne. This is the same with The Duke of Rothesay title in Scotland as it has the same criteria.

All of the other titles could cease to be held by someone who is an HRH Prince xxx. The next Dukes of Gloucester and Kent will both be great-grandchildren of the monarch and thus won't be HRH Prince xxx (the present Earls of Ulster and St Andrews respectively).

The Duke of Edinburgh title will eventually also cease to be royal - when it reaches James' son most likely (although there are other possibilities with that title). The Wessex title will also cease to be held by a royal when held by James' son.

The York title will become extinct again when Andrew dies (unless he remarries and has a son or the LPs are re-issued allowing for Beatrice to inherity) and thus a regrant will see it pass to probably William's son and then eventually to a non-royal.

 

[PrincessKaimi]

I'm getting it. I also found the online chart of peerages, which shows how they become extinct - that helps too.

I think Branchg just answered that. I had thought there was some debate about Diana, Princess of Wales - and that had the Queen permitted, she could have kept HRH by courtesy (I could be totally confused). At any rate, I think Branchg answered my question.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The children and male-line grandchildren of The Sovereign are automatically HRH Prince/Princess of the UK by right of birth because they are in lineal succession to the throne. This is a courtesy style reflective of their royal rank and precedence, outranking hereditary Peers of the Realm who are titled, because they are closer to the throne in their own right.

Their wives, consistent with common law and practice in the Peerage, automatically enjoy the status, style and rank of their husbands, which means they automatically become HRH Princess of the UK upon marriage. If their husbands are created Peers, their wives then take their titles as the wife of a Peer (i.e. The Countess or Duchess of X) but with royal rank as HRH.

Males do not share their wives' rank, so in the case of Philip, he was granted his own title with royal rank by George VI before marrying The Queen. This was mainly done to ensure The Princess Elizabeth was marrying a man of equal rank who was not a commoner (i.e. HRH The Duke of Edinburgh). Once she was The Sovereign, she issued Letters Patent elevating Philip to the style and rank of a Prince of the UK in 1957.

The style and rank of "HRH Prince/Princess of the UK" is a courtesy title. Anyone who is not The Sovereign or a Peer is a commoner in the UK. They enjoy this style and rank as a personal honour, whereas a Peerage is hereditary and eventually loses royal rank when it passes to the great-grandchild of a Sovereign.

I am confused by your post here.

The HRH's are automatic.

To me a 'courtesy' title is one that a person uses but one that they don't hold as a substantive title or in their own right e.g. Earl of St Andrews, Earl of Ultster, Viscount Severn. These titles are courtesy titles as held by someone as a indication of their position but not a substantive title. The substantive holder of the title Earl of St Andrews is the Duke of Kent but his eldest son uses that title as a 'courtesy' title. The same with the Earl of Ulster and Viscount Severn in relation to the Duke of Gloucester and Earl of Wessex respectively. The uses of these titles, in their own rights, are simply Lords as the sons of peers.

Those who hold the HRH do so by right of birth or marriage but not 'courtesy' as such. The LPs of 1917 make it clear who holds the titles and no one holds it as a 'courtesy' but as a right based on either those LPs or the specific ones regarding Philip in 1947 and 1957.

Is 'courtesy' the word that we really should be using here as 'courtesy titles' are a specific form of title used by someone who isn't the actual holder of the title?

Surely you aren't suggesting, in using the term 'courtesy' that HRH isn't a style a person holds in their own right?

I am getting confused.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I think Branchg just answered that. I had thought there was some debate about Diana, Princess of Wales - and that had the Queen permitted, she could have kept HRH by courtesy (I could be totally confused). At any rate, I think Branchg answered my question.

Actually Diana was formally stripped of the HRH by LPs, which would indicate that LPs were required to stop her using HRH - no courtesy about it.

The same with the Duchess of Windsor. The LPs created the Dukedom specified that that Duchess wasn't to get the HRH - which would have been hers by right on marriage under the 1917 LPs.

This is why I am confused. No one I can think of has ever had HRH as a courtesy - they have had them by right of birth or marriage.

 

[branchg]

To me a 'courtesy' title is one that a person uses but one that they don't hold as a substantive title or in their own right e.g. Earl of St Andrews, Earl of Ultster, Viscount Severn. These titles are courtesy titles as held by someone as a indication of their position but not a substantive title.

Those who hold the HRH do so by right of birth or marriage but not 'courtesy' as such. The LPs of 1917 make it clear who holds the titles and no one holds it as a 'courtesy' but as a right based on either those LPs or the specific ones regarding Philip in 1947 and 1957.

Surely you aren't suggesting, in using the term 'courtesy' that HRH isn't a style a person holds in their own right?

I am getting confused.

What I mean is that "HRH Prince/Princess of the UK" is simply a style granted by the fount of honour (The Sovereign) via Letters Patent. It is not a title nor does it denote any status constitutionally. Until raised to the Peerage, Princes and Princesses of the UK are commoners, albeit with royal rank and precedence.

A person may be entitled by right of birth or marriage (depending on Letters Patent) to the style and rank, but it can be removed or denied at any time by The Sovereign. This is not the case for Peers of the Realm, although the House of Lords were reformed in 1999 and hereditary Peers lost their automatic rights to sit in the House.

 

[branchg]

Actually Diana was formally stripped of the HRH by LPs, which would indicate that LPs were required to stop her using HRH - no courtesy about it.

The same with the Duchess of Windsor. The LPs created the Dukedom specified that that Duchess wasn't to get the HRH - which would have been hers by right on marriage under the 1917 LPs.

This is why I am confused. No one I can think of has ever had HRH as a courtesy - they have had them by right of birth or marriage.

Diana and Sarah lost their HRH style automatically with divorce. They assumed superior rank upon marriage, which departed with divorce, the same as former wives of Peers. The Queen issued Letters Patent in 1996 confirming a former wife of a Prince of the UK was not entitled to enjoy HRH upon divorce, but both of them had already lost it.

The Letters Patent creating the Dukedom of Windsor for The Prince Edward were issued in March 1937. George VI issued additional Letters Patent in May 1937 a week before The Duke was due to marry stating he continued to enjoy the rank of HRH, but such attribute was limited to him alone and could not be shared by his wife and children.

 

[MRSJ]

I thought I read his children could get HRH but not his wife... Or am I remembering wrong? I also read the Duchess made servants call her HRH anyway -

 

[KittyAtlanta]

Actually, I believe it was the Duke who insisted the servants address Wallis as HRH. He was adamant in that. I don't know whether she was bothered by it at all.