Questions about British Styles and Titles 2: Sep 2022 - Aug 2023

[SirGyamfi1]

Probably, she would be the mother of the future monarch and in this scenario they would still be married, so nothing at all to distinguish her from Elizabeth and Mary.

I do think the consort title in general needs looking at. Prince Philip was known as that, presumably as for him to have had the title of King would outrank Queen given the male primogeniture at the time. But if it’s now all equal, surely it should be Queen Consort and King Consort (so it’s clear who the regnant is) or all consorts should be Prince or Princess. And male consorts should be crowned with their spouse as Camilla will be.

Don’t agree with the consort part.

 

[Sister Morphine]

There's only ever been one Prince Consort, and that was Albert. The DoE was never Prince Consort, and if George's eldest child is a daughter, her husband won't be Prince Consort either. He won't be King Consort. He'll be given a dukedom, just like Prince Philip was.

 

[Somebody]

All those Queens were only referred to as such after the death of their husbands.

Diana would in all likelihood have been HM The Queen, informally Queen Diana.

Philip was The Duke of Edinburgh, not prince consort. The Prince Consort was Albert, and only for the last few years of his life. Before that he was just Prince Albert.

While he wasn't known as 'The Prince Consort', he was made in prince in 1957.

His titles/names throughout his life were (copied from wikipedia - not sure that his title on 19-20 November is correct):
10 June 1921 – 28 February 1947: His Royal Highness Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark
28 February 1947 – 19 November 1947: Lieutenant Philip Mountbatten
19 November 1947 – 20 November 1947: Lieutenant His Royal Highness Sir Philip Mountbatten
20 November 1947 – 22 February 1957: His Royal Highness The Duke of Edinburgh
22 February 1957 – 9 April 2021: His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Now that Duchess of Cambridge is the Princess of Wales, do you think that King Charles will eventually write letters patent giving her the title of "Princess" so that referring to her as Princess Catherine will be correct. It seems that the news media still can't stop calling her Kate Middleton and that it would be easier to make her title Princess, since that is what a lot of people are going to call her anyway. I know writing letters patent do not depend on what makes it easier for people, but given that I have heard he views her as the daughter he never had, it would really be great if he did.

Letters patent wouldn't be necessary, as it isn't a legal matter. There are no laws or letters patent banning princesses consort from being referred to by their own first name. The King and Royal Household simply choose not to do so, just as they choose to refer to Mrs. Michael Tindall rather than Mrs. Zara Tindall (most of the time).

I do think the consort title in general needs looking at. Prince Philip was known as that, presumably as for him to have had the title of King would outrank Queen given the male primogeniture at the time. But if it’s now all equal, surely it should be Queen Consort and King Consort (so it’s clear who the regnant is) or all consorts should be Prince or Princess. And male consorts should be crowned with their spouse as Camilla will be.

In spite of the male-preference primogeniture, I doubt that anyone in the UK would have been confused as to who was the monarch and needed to be bowed or curtseyed to first, even if Philip had been titled King. I agree that there is even less reason now for the inequality.

While he wasn't known as 'The Prince Consort', he was made in prince in 1957.

His titles/names throughout his life were (copied from wikipedia - not sure that his title on 19-20 November is correct):
10 June 1921 – 28 February 1947: His Royal Highness Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark
28 February 1947 – 19 November 1947: Lieutenant Philip Mountbatten

I don't think the 1921-1947 is correct, either. Again, he signed himself "Prince of Greece" (no Denmark) when serving in the UK navy.

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-...ge-life-profile-of-prince-philip-1563268.html

There's only ever been one Prince Consort, and that was Albert. The DoE was never Prince Consort, and if George's eldest child is a daughter, her husband won't be Prince Consort either. He won't be King Consort. He'll be given a dukedom, just like Prince Philip was.

How do you know what will happen perhaps 70 years into the future?

 

[Prinsara]

While he wasn't known as 'The Prince Consort', he was made in prince in 1957.

His titles/names throughout his life were (copied from wikipedia - not sure that his title on 19-20 November is correct):
10 June 1921 – 28 February 1947: His Royal Highness Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark
28 February 1947 – 19 November 1947: Lieutenant Philip Mountbatten
19 November 1947 – 20 November 1947: Lieutenant His Royal Highness Sir Philip Mountbatten
20 November 1947 – 22 February 1957: His Royal Highness The Duke of Edinburgh
22 February 1957 – 9 April 2021: His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

It mattered to Philip, but all he was still ever formally called by anyone was the Duke of Edinburgh.

And yes, the 19-20 of November 47 is correct. He had an HRH and a Garter knighthood, but no Dukedom.

 

[Meee]

I probably could have worded that better, obviously he was the consort, but he was called Prince Philip (and that wasn’t because he was born a Prince in his own right, as he had renounced that.) He wasn’t The King or The King Consort, while Camilla is now known as HM The Queen Consort, and Philip’s in-laws had been styled as HM The Queen while their husbands reigned.

Giving Dukedoms to a male consort while not making a female consort a Duchess in her own right and styling her as HM The Queen instead, with or without the Consort part continues to convey a gender bias, as a Duke is obviously lesser to the equivalence given to female consorts when their husbands accede.

I do not mind whether it is Prince/Princess, Duke/Duchess or King/Queen that is used for consorts, just as long as the a King still outranks a Queen so a consort cannot be HM the King (and King X should he become a dowager) goes.

The use of the Consort title simply seems to be a way to make it gender neutral if subconsciously a King still outranks a Queen, as it does every time we open a pack of playing cards.

 

[Saragli]

I find the courts emphasis on "the Queen Consort" as a way to differentiate that Camilla is a different kind of Queen than QEII. However I do wish the court would start calling her HM Queen Camilla the Queen Consort similar to how the Kings grandmother was HM Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother.

I, for one, am starting to appreciate the use of Consort in the title. It is helping the British, and world, become familiar with it as a title and concept. This paves the way for a "King Consort" down the road. The Brits will, most likely, not have to cross that bridge for a long time but I simply cannot see any gender discrimination with titles happening down the road. The rest of Europe will have to cross that bridge sooner than later i.e. Sweden and etc.

This is also why I see them adopting a Swedish/Spanish type model where Louis and Charlotte will get Dukedoms in their own right but they will just be life peerages and their children will only be know as Lord/Lady.

 

[Somebody]

It mattered to Philip, but all he was still ever formally called by anyone was the Duke of Edinburgh.

And yes, the 19-20 of November 47 is correct. He had an HRH and a Garter knighthood, but no Dukedom.

Are you sure, while being a royal highness he still was to be referred as Lieutenant and Sir?

My question was not related to him being given the dukedom a day later...

 

[Somebody]

I probably could have worded that better, obviously he was the consort, but he was called Prince Philip (and that wasn’t because he was born a Prince in his own right, as he had renounced that.) He wasn’t The King or The King Consort, while Camilla is now known as HM The Queen Consort, and Philip’s in-laws had been styled as HM The Queen while their husbands reigned.

Giving Dukedoms to a male consort while not making a female consort a Duchess in her own right and styling her as HM The Queen instead, with or without the Consort part continues to convey a gender bias, as a Duke is obviously lesser to the equivalence given to female consorts when their husbands accede.

I do not mind whether it is Prince/Princess, Duke/Duchess or King/Queen that is used for consorts, just as long as the a King still outranks a Queen so a consort cannot be HM the King (and King X should he become a dowager) goes.

The use of the Consort title simply seems to be a way to make it gender neutral if subconsciously a King still outranks a Queen, as it does every time we open a pack of playing cards.

He wasn't 'Prince Philip' for about 10 years - he was until early 1947 and after early 1957. I assume he wasn't called prince Philip in those years either (at least by the Court).

 

[Prinsara]

Are you sure, while being a royal highness he still was to be referred as Lieutenant and Sir?

My question was not related to him being given the dukedom a day later...

He was a royal highness but not a prince nor anything else.

When he had the dukedom a day later he was obviously referred to as the Duke of Edinburgh ever after.

Yes, I'm sure. Trying googling "Lieutenant Sir Philip Mountbatten". The story of the weird titles gap is in more than one place.

 

[Somebody]

He was a royal highness but not a prince nor anything else.

When he had the dukedom a day later he was obviously referred to as the Duke of Edinburgh ever after.

Yes, I'm sure. Trying googling "Lieutenant Sir Philip Mountbatten". The story of the weird titles gap is in more than one place.

I was mainly thinking that the Lieutenant and probably Sir as well would go once he became a royal highness and not only once he got a peerage. For example, was Harry - or any other of the royal highnesses in the military- ever addressed as Captain His Royal Highness Prince Harry of Wales before he got his peerage? I believe he was either addressed as 'Captain Harry of Wales' or as 'HRH Prince Harry (Henry) of Wales' - not as both.

None of the results after googling showed this weird combination of styling including a military style, the style of Royal Highness and 'Sir' - so please share the specific source you were thinking of, as I'd love to read more about it

 

[Prinsara]

Duke of Edinburgh (Nov 19, 1947)

Whitehall, November 20, 1947.
The KING has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm, bearing date the 19th instant, to declare that Lieutenant Sir Philip Mountbatten, K.G., R.N., shall be entitled to hold and enjoy the style, title and attribute of Royal Highness.

(London Gazette, issue 38128, Nov. 21, 1947, p. 1/5495.)

Note: he was created duke of Edinburgh by letters patent of the following day, gazetted in the same issue.

 

[Sister Morphine]

I was mainly thinking that the Lieutenant and probably Sir as well would go once he became a royal highness and not only once he got a peerage. For example, was Harry - or any other of the royal highnesses in the military- ever addressed as Captain His Royal Highness Prince Harry of Wales before he got his peerage? I believe he was either addressed as 'Captain Harry of Wales' or as 'HRH Prince Harry (Henry) of Wales' - not as both.

No "of." He was just Captain Harry Wales. Both he and William used "Wales" as a last name when they needed one. I'm fairly certain when both were in active service, particularly Harry, he wasn't referred to as HRH. Everyone's equal when they're getting shot at.

 

[Prinsara]

Titles of nobility and knighthoods are used in the military, but neither William nor Harry had one when they served.

 

[duchessrachel]

Probably, she would be the mother of the future monarch and in this scenario they would still be married, so nothing at all to distinguish her from Elizabeth and Mary.

I do think the consort title in general needs looking at. Prince Philip was known as that, presumably as for him to have had the title of King would outrank Queen given the male primogeniture at the time. But if it’s now all equal, surely it should be Queen Consort and King Consort (so it’s clear who the regnant is) or all consorts should be Prince or Princess. And male consorts should be crowned with their spouse as Camilla will be.

I wonder if she will be referred to as Queen Camilla once they are crowned. I know that they are just as much King and Queen now as they will be when they go through the Coronation, but I am just wondering if that is when the press will shift their Consort references to just Queen.

 

[Prinsara]

I wonder if she will be referred to as Queen Camilla once they are crowned. I know that they are just as much King and Queen now as they will be when they go through the Coronation, but I am just wondering if that is when the press will shift their Consort references to just Queen.

It's not the press. The Royal Family website refers to her as "The Queen Consort", exactly the way the late Queen specified she would be.

I don't believe there's any example of a British royal having their style shifted by custom and not by an actual event, like gaining a peerage, losing one for treason, or getting divorced.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Duke of Edinburgh (Nov 19, 1947)

Whitehall, November 20, 1947.
The KING has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm, bearing date the 19th instant, to declare that Lieutenant Sir Philip Mountbatten, K.G., R.N., shall be entitled to hold and enjoy the style, title and attribute of Royal Highness.

(London Gazette, issue 38128, Nov. 21, 1947, p. 1/5495.)

Note: he was created duke of Edinburgh by letters patent of the following day, gazetted in the same issue.

The original poster was requesting a source on his styling after being created Royal Highness but before receiving the dukedom. The gazette notice you quote reads "declare that Lieutenant Sir Philip Mountbatten, K.G., R.N., shall be entitled" (emphasis mine), so it refers to his name prior to receiving the HRH.

If you have the text of the letters patent dated the following day, that would answer the question.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

He wasn't 'Prince Philip' for about 10 years - he was until early 1947 and after early 1957. I assume he wasn't called prince Philip in those years either (at least by the Court).

The Court was not exactly consistent in those years:

By letters patent of Nov. 19, 1947 Lt Sir Philip Mountbatten was granted the style of Royal Highness, and he was created Duke of Edinburgh the following day. He was in the anomalous position of being a Royal Highness but not a Prince, although the normal association of the two styles led to some confusion on the matter. Garter stated that "I believe he remains a Prince of Greece and Denmark though naturalized here." (Garter, 19 Dec 1947, LCO 6/3559). Letters patent of Oct. 22, 1948 granted the style of Royal Highness to the children of his marriage to Princess Elizabeth. In the text, he is styled "His Royal Highness Prince Philip Duke of Edinburgh". In the Regency Act 1953, and in the birth registration of Princess Anne, he is styled "His Royal Highness Philip, Duke of Edinburgh". At the time of this birth, the General Register Office consulted the Home Office on the proper style that he should receive, and they proposed "His Royal Highness Prince Philip"; but George VI amended himself the proposed entry and replaced it with "His Royal Highness Philip, Duke of Edinburgh" (see the letter from H. Austin Strutt, 28 Feb 1955, LCO 6/3677).​

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/prince_highness.htm#Edinburgh

More citations can be seen in the old threads about Philip's titles.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

It's not the press. The Royal Family website refers to her as "The Queen Consort", exactly the way the late Queen specified she would be.

I don't believe there's any example of a British royal having their style shifted by custom and not by an actual event, like gaining a peerage, losing one for treason, or getting divorced.

Indeed, the press is simply - and rightfully - following the Royal Family's own official titulature.

But the royal spokesperson did not rule out a later shift, and one article claimed it would happen upon the coronation:

https://inews.co.uk/news/question-for-future-whether-camilla-queen-or-queen-consort-palace-1848485

As the wife of the King, Camilla is technically Her Majesty The Queen and entitled to be known as “The Queen”, but briefings and statements from Buckingham Palace have referred to her as “Queen Consort”.

A spokesman for the King did not rule out a shift when asked whether Camilla would forever be known as Queen Consort, or whether she could become known simply as the Queen.

“The King and Queen Consort are focused on getting through those next 10 days,” the spokesman said.

“I think those who saw the Queen Consort yesterday movingly meeting people outside Buckingham Palace know how moved she is at the moment and that’s her focus so that will be a question for the future.”​

Since even his explicitly stated "intention" for Camilla to be known as Princess Consort was eventually withdrawn, my personal assumption is that the expression "question for the future" is tantamount to the King having firm plans to make the shift. If I am correct, I hope he will act on it relatively soon and not begin another years-long "will he or won't he" guessing game regarding his wife's style.

According to Raven Saunt in the Telegraph, the "Consort" will be dropped when Camilla is crowned. But as the article inaccurately states that Camilla is following the style of Queen Elizabeth's mother, grandmother, etc., I am not sure how reliable it is.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/0/camilla-queen-consort-meaning-new-royal-title-charles/

Having previously been given the Queen's blessing, Camilla will be crowned side-by-side with her husband, with the couple henceforth called the “King and Queen”.​

 

[Somebody]

Titles of nobility and knighthoods are used in the military, but neither William nor Harry had one when they served.

Can you give an example of the styling of a Duke in the military? Would they officially use 'Army title' His Grace Duke of X?

 

[Somebody]

The original poster was requesting a source on his styling after being created Royal Highness but before receiving the dukedom. The gazette notice you quote reads "declare that Lieutenant Sir Philip Mountbatten, K.G., R.N., shall be entitled" (emphasis mine), so it refers to his name prior to receiving the HRH.

If you have the text of the letters patent dated the following day, that would answer the question.

Thanks. I am still trying to find a reliable source that explains his exact styling between him being created a royal highness and being created the Duke of Edinburgh. He was a Lieutenant (by virtue of his position in the military) a Sir (by virtue of his Knighthood) and Philip Mountbatten (after renouncing his Greek titles) as well as a royal higness. But given that the reference to him being a Lieutenant was no longer applied after he became HRH the Duke of Edinburgh - I do wonder whether he was truly supposed to be styled 'Lieutenant HRH ...' - I can imagine that he would remain '(HRH) Sir Philip Mountbatten - as long as he didn't have a peerage to go with his HRH-style'.

 

[Prinsara]

The original poster was requesting a source on his styling after being created Royal Highness but before receiving the dukedom. The gazette notice you quote reads "declare that Lieutenant Sir Philip Mountbatten, K.G., R.N., shall be entitled" (emphasis mine), so it refers to his name prior to receiving the HRH.

If you have the text of the letters patent dated the following day, that would answer the question.

From the letterspatentbrf Tumblr:
(London Gazette, issue 38128,* Nov.21, 1947, p. 1/5495 and p. 2/5496)
weblink:https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/38128/page/5495 and https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/38128/page/5496

Whitehall, November 20, 1947.
The KING has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm, bearing date the 20th instant, to confer the dignity of a Duke of the United Kingdom upon Lieutenant His Royal Highness Sir Philip Mountbatten, K.G., R.N., and the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten, by the name, style and title of BARON GREENWICH, of Greenwich in the County of London, EARL OF MERIONETH, and DUKE OF EDINBURGH.

 

[Prinsara]

Can you give an example of the styling of a Duke in the military? Would they officially use 'Army title' His Grace Duke of X?

His Grace the Duke of Wellington? Or Field Marshal His Grace The Duke of Wellington? Yes, he had a bunch. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...thur_Wellesley,_1st_Duke_of_Wellington#Styles

 

[wbenson]

The Times is done using "Queen Consort" in its reporting:

Many will be pleased to know that The Times’ writers have been instructed to drop the term the Queen Consort.

Whatever clarifying use it had during the mourning period has expired. Queen Camilla is now to be referred to as such or, if there is no risk of confusion, as The Queen.

Also worth noting that the Royal Family website refers to her as The Queen Consort.

The Times view is that this is an “awkward designation”. Plenty of our readers agree.

The Palace and the paper of record are simply having a disagreement over style.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The Times is done using "Queen Consort" in its reporting:

Also worth noting that the Royal Family website refers to her as The Queen Consort.

The Times view is that this is an “awkward designation”. Plenty of our readers agree.

The Palace and the paper of record are simply having a disagreement over style.

Interesting that The Times' editorial committee thinks it and the Palace have equal authority over royal styles (!).

Should the republican editors of The Guardian adopt the same logic of "disagreeing with the Palace" and instruct their reporters to strictly refer to "Mrs. Camilla Mountbatten-Windsor" going forward?

 

[wbenson]

Interesting that The Times' editorial committee thinks it and the Palace have equal authority over royal styles (!).

Yes, I laughed at that. I agree with the premise that the Palace style leads to awkwardness, but talk about being more holy than the Pope...

 

[MonacoRoyalFan]

I think Queen Consort should stay. Until and only if the general public do away with it.

Elizabeth II was known simply as The Queen to most. Around the world. The most known woman in the world. Some have made comparisons that then we should continue to call Charles Prince of wales because that is what he is known and William and Duke of Cambridge. But truthfully most around the world know Charles as simply Charles or Prince Charles. Same with William.

 

[Denville]

I think Queen Consort should stay. Until and only if the general public do away with it.

Elizabeth II was known simply as The Queen to most. Around the world. The most known woman in the world. Some have made comparisons that then we should continue to call Charles Prince of wales because that is what he is known and William and Duke of Cambridge. But truthfully most around the world know Charles as simply Charles or Prince Charles. Same with William.

that woudl be quite impossible. Charles is not Pr of Wales now, he is the King. Camilla is now the queen and now that Elizabeth II is gone for some weeks, there is no danger of confusion. William is POW now, so he will not be known as D of Cambridge.

 

[Lilyflo]

The Times is done using "Queen Consort" in its reporting:

Good! I think HMK is too afraid of public opinion on the matter, probably due to negative polls about whether we'll accept Queen Camilla. I've said for years "Just do it" and the public will catch up.

 

[MonacoRoyalFan]

that woudl be quite impossible. Charles is not Pr of Wales now, he is the King. Camilla is now the queen and now that Elizabeth II is gone for some weeks, there is no danger of confusion. William is POW now, so he will not be known as D of Cambridge.

Agree. I was just pointing out just comparisons miss the mark. But. Okay people around the world associate “The Queen” with the Elizabeth II. Even Predisent of France said “she was your Queen, to us she was The Queen”