Just a quick clarification on the future of the title “the Duke of Edinburgh” because a few folk have been asking.
Philip was created Duke of Edinburgh at the time of his marriage to the then Princess Elizabeth in 1947. He held it for so long and with such distinction, that it’s difficult to envisage anyone else using it.
Nevertheless it is a title with a past and with a future.
When Philip’s youngest son, Prince Edward was married in 1999, it was announced that he would one day receive his father’s title. Edward took on many of his father’s duties including responsibility for the iconic Duke of Edinburgh scheme. Charles may be his mother’s heir. Edward was being lined up to be their father’s.
But Edward cannot really receive the title until Charles is King.
Almost all hereditary peerages (titles like “duke”, “earl” and “baron”) are created for the holder and their “heirs male, lawfully begotten.” Charles, as the eldest son, inherits the dukedom of Edinburgh. To change this would require an act of Parliament. It’s highly unlikely that Parliament will priorities sorting out a royal title over a bill on schools, budgets, hospital or Covid.
Charles could disclaim the title. But it would still be held in reserve for his heirs and could not be easily given to Edward.
So Charles is the duke of Edinburgh. However, it is unlikely that he will ever use the title. He has many titles that most people know nothing of.
When Charles becomes King all his other titles will “merge with the crown.” He can then choose to recreate the dukedom of Edinburgh for Prince Edward, which he has publicly committed to doing.
If – God forbid – something happened to Charles before he became King, the Edinburgh title would be inherited by William.
In theory, the Queen could choose to create a new dukedom of Edinburgh for Edward now. So there would be two dukes of Edinburgh at the same time. It is highly unlikely that she will. It would seem very irregular but as far as I know, there is no law against it. In the 1900s there were two dukedoms of Fife in existence at the same time. Though both were held by the same person.
The rules governing the use of Royal titles are both captivating and convoluted. They have evolved over a thousand years with new protocols created to address specific situations. They are not always logical and even super-cool Royal watchers can struggle to make head and tail of them.
Those hoping to get their head around the practices and protocols, won’t get much help from the popular press. Almost every time a news outlet tries to explain how a title works, they get more wrong than right.
Here’s the top 5 errors I’ve noticed in British media in recent months.
Female-line grandchildren of a monarch do not get Royal titles
1. Princess Anne ‘chose’ not to give her children Royal titles
The use of Royal titles has been strictly governed since 1917. Legal documents regulate the usage of the style of His/Her Royal Highness and the ‘titular dignity’ of Prince or Princess. Under current laws they do not extend to female-line grandchildren of monarchs.
According to ‘letters patent’ issued in 1917 and adapted in 2013, Royal styles go the children of a sovereign, children of sons of a sovereign and the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales.
As such, Anne’s children, Peter and Zara Phillips were never entitled to be a Prince or Princess. It is probable that Anne’s first husband, Mark Phillips was offered an Earldom and that this was refused. Had the couple accepted, Anne’s children would have been styled as the children of an Earl, as Princess Margaret’s offspring were. So it is probable that Anne effectively turned down titles for her children – but not royal titles.
2. Kate and Meghan are not princesses because they are not blood royals
I understand where this comes from. But it’s not quite correct. Under the British system a wife takes her husband’s precedence. She is the feminine version of all her husband’s titles (there are exceptions such as in the Church and the military). So the wife of a Prince is always a Princess.
Under strict court etiquette, is not appropriate to refer to a Princess by marriage as ‘Princess Firstname.’ Catherine is ‘Princess William’ rather than ‘Princess Catherine’. Meghan is ‘Princess Henry’.
Because both their husbands are also Dukes, they are referred to as Duchesses. Whenever an individual is a peer or peeress – royal or not – first names are rarely required. Our future Queen is not ‘Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge’ but simply ‘The Duchess of Cambridge’. This can change in widowhood where it has become customary to combine first names with titles.
Catherine became a Princess the second she married the Duke of Cambridge
3. Diana was made a Princess, but Kate has yet to be so
No. Diana and Catherine both acquired the status of Princess by marriage (see above). No one has actually been ‘made a princess’ since the reign of Edward VII (although special measures were taken to ensure Anne was a Princess ahead of her mother’s ascension).
Despite being popularly referred to as ‘Princess Diana’, the late Princess of Wales was never officially styled as such. When the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge married, the Palace made it clear they were perfectly relaxed about people calling the Duchess ‘Princess Catherine’. But the style is not officially acknowledged at court.
4. William and Harry’s wives were given titles, but Eugenie’s husband was not because she is lower down the line of succession
Royal titles have little to do with place in the succession but much to do with gender.
Under the British system – and indeed most western systems – a wife takes on the style and precedence of her husband. As stated above, the current Duchesses of Cambridge and Sussex acquired their status simply by virtue of marriage. But husbands of titled women derive no style or precedence from their wives. That’s why the Duke of Edinburgh is not known as ‘King.’
In days gone by, untitled men marrying a Princess would be offered a peerage title – typically an Earldom. Their children would thus enjoy aristocratic styles. But those days are gone.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have agreed not to use Royal titles when working commercially
5. The Queen has removed the style ‘HRH’ from Harry and Meghan.
Not quite, though the early communication around this was confusing. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have agreed not to use their Royal styles when conducting commercial work. We are yet to see exactly how they will style themselves on such occasions. My guess is that they will act as if they are untitled and use their peerage title as if it were a surname. So for example, if Meghan stars in a film, she might simply be credited as ‘Meghan Sussex.’
This would be consistent with what other aristocrats and Royals do. The Duchess of Kent styled herself as ‘Mrs Kent’ when working as a music teacher. The Queen’s nephew calls himself ‘David Linley’ when trading. His actual name is David Armstrong-Jones, but until his father died his courtesy title was ‘Viscount Linley.’
Over on facebook, we Royal History Geeks have been debating our favourite Queens from history. It’s what super-cool people do.
What many people don’t know (and let’s be honest, why should they?) is that in the British system, there are five different types of Queen.
Thought it would be worth a quick post to clarify.
QueenRegnant
When a woman inherits the crown in her own right, she is a ‘Queen Regnant.’ She reigns by right of birth and has the same powers and responsibilities as a King.
In English history there have been six undisputed Queen Regnants: Mary I, Elizabeth I, Mary II, Anne, Vicotria and Elizabeth II.
Scotland has been reigned over by five Queen Regnants – Mary Queen of Scots, Mary II, Anne, Queen Victoria, and the present Queen.
Mary I was the first undisputed Queen Regnant of England
Queen Consort
This is the most common kind of Queen in history. The wife of a King. In the British system, she is ‘Her Majesty the Queen’ and signs ‘R’ for ‘Regina’ after her name – exactly as a Queen Regnant would.
Queen Alexandra was consort to Edward VII
Queen Dowager
A former Queen Consort whose husband is dead. In the British system she is rarely known as ‘Queen Dowager.’ Instead she uses ‘Queen first name’. For example, the widow of George V was known as Her Majesty Queen Mary during the reign of her sons and granddaughter. She is still a Queen. But she is no longer the Queen.
Elizabeth Woodville, was restored to ‘Queen Dowager’ status when Henry VII became King
Queen Mother
When a Dowager Queen is the mother of the reigning monarch, they are often informally known as ‘Queen Mother.’ It is rarely an official style. But it was from 1952 – 2002. Because of confusion potentially arising from the presence of two Queen Elizabeths at the same time, the mother of the current Queen officially assumed the style ‘Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother.’ However, servants and those ‘close’ to her referred to her simply as ‘Queen Elizabeth.’
It is important to note, that the mother of monarch cannot be given Queen Mother status is she were never a Queen herself. As such the mothers of Edward IV, Henry VII and Queen Victoria were never styled as ‘Queen Mother’. Though in the case of the first two, they were effectively treated as such.
The widowed Queen Elizabeth officially adopted the title ‘Queen Mother’
Queen Regent
These are rare. If a King were absent for a period of time, he may leave his wife in charge. As such, she would become ‘Queen Regent’ and exercise the Royal prerogative on his behalf.
The style would typically only last a few weeks. Both Katherine of Aragon and Katherine Parr enjoyed this distinction during the reign of Henry VIII.
There are occasions where the arrangement lasts longer. Mary de Guise was Queen Regent of Scotland during the long minority of her daughter.
It is highly unlikely that we will ever see another Queen Regent in the UK. The creation of ‘Councillors of State’ removes the need for short-term regency. Were a regency ever required to deal with an under-age or incapacitated monarch, law dictates that this role should go to the next adult in the line of succession. A Queen Consort could never be that person.
Katherine Parr briefly ruled England as regent
Hope this helps!
So – here’s the question Royal History Geeks: who is your favourite Queen of each type and why?
The period drama is the best TV to hit our screens this year. But how do we get our heads around the different aristocratic titles used in the series?
Note: this post contains spoilers. If you haven’t watched all six episodes yet, do two things. 1) Do not read this post. 2) Book an appointment with a life coach to sort your life out. You are clearly making bad decisions.
There are probably people who aren’t raving about ITV’s Belgravia. But I can’t imagine I’d ever speak to those people.
The spectacular production did what period fiction does best. It granted us escape from the trials of our own world. It helped us see how much society has changed. It reminded us that human nature hasn’t.
A few people have asked me about the different styles and titles used in the six-episode epic. Why is Charles Pope’s grandmother called ‘Lady Brockenhurst’ when his finance is ‘Lady Maria’? Why is his grandfather a Lord while his grandfather’s brother is not?
This interest won’t last forever. I’ll strike while the iron is hot. Here is a quick guide to the titles and styles wielded by the hit show’s characters.
Like the best period dramas, the show allows us to escape from the trials of our own world
Explaining the styles of Belgravia’s titled characters
(Note: I have not included the Dukes of Wellington or Richmond, both real historical figures, who appear only in the first episode. I have included Edmund Bellasis due to his significance to the series).
Peregrine Bellasis, Earl of Brockenhurst
An earl is the third highest of the five ranks of hereditary peerage. It ranks below duke and marquess but above viscount and baron.
The character would be addressed as ‘Lord Brockenhurst’ by people within his social sphere. Servants would call him ‘my lord.’ Informally, peers may refer to him as ‘Peregrine Brockenhurst.’ His title is thus used as a surname, even though his actual surname is ‘Bellasis.’
We can deduce from the series that Peregrine’s full title is Earl of Brockenhust and Viscount Bellasis. More on this below.
Caroline Bellasis, Countess of Brockenhurst
The wife of an earl is a countess. People in her social sphere would refer to her as ‘Lady Brockenhurst’. Servants would address her as ‘my lady.’
In the series, Lady Brockenhurst is the daughter of a duke. As such her precedence was reduced upon marriage. A duke’s daughter outranks a countess.
But this is a technicality. There weren’t many dukes or marquesses around. The most important thing was marrying into a great landed family. Even a title wasn’t essential. The Earl of Brockenhurst would have been seen as a good match.
Edmund Bellasis, Viscount Bellasis
The eldest sons of an earl uses one of his father’s lesser titles (or subsidiary titles) by courtesy during the lifetime of his father. As such, Edmund is styled as a ‘Viscount’ even though, strictly speaking, he isn’t one. He can’t attend the House of Lords. Technically he’s commoner. But socially he is treated as if he held the rank. He would generally be addressed as ‘Lord Bellasis.’
Once acknowledged as heir, Charles Pope would become known as Viscount Bellasis
Charles Pope, Viscount Bellasis
Once recognised as the heir to Lord Brockenhurst, Charles becomes Viscount Bellasis. This is his father’s second title and the style his father had used.
Generally, only eldest sons use their father’s subsidiary title (see above). But because his father is dead, Charles is the heir apparent to the earldom. He can use the title because the only thing that will prevent him inheriting is if he predeceased his grandfather.
It’s worth noting that even though Charles’s surname is Pope, he could not style himself ‘Viscount Pope.’ Specific titles are created and inherited. You don’t just inherit a rank which can be moulded around your name.
The Hon. Rev. Stephen Bellasis
As a younger son of an Earl, the character is ‘the Honourable Stephen Bellasis.’ Because he is a vicar, he can add ‘Rev’ or ‘Rev’d’ to his style.
The style of honourable (which is also wielded by the children of viscounts and barons) is only used when referring to an individual. For example, if one were inviting the character to a social occasion (and if you are, I’d watch your valuables) the envelope would be addressed to ‘The Hon. Rev. Stephen Bellasis.’ However, you would begin the letter ‘Dear Mr Bellasis’ or ‘Dear Rev Bellasis.’
For most of the series, Stephen is the heir to the Earldom of Brockenhurst. However, he can’t use the title ‘Viscount Bellasis.’ He is not the heir apparent but the heir presumptive. At any stage he could be displaced if his brother had a son. While this may have seemed unlikely, it remained a theoretical possibility.
Wayward Stephen Bellasis was heir presumptive to the earldom of Brockenhurst for most of the series
The Hon. Mrs Bellasis
The long-suffering wife of Stephen enjoys the style of ‘honourable’ by dint of marriage. She is ‘the Hon. Mrs Bellasis’ and never ‘the Hon. Grace Bellasis.’ If you met her, you would simply address her as ‘Mrs Bellasis.’ When referring to her or introducing her, you would correctly use the full style.
The (Dowager) Duchess of Richmond
A Duchess is the wife of a Duke, the highest rank of peerage. On a handful of occasions, some women have been created duchesses in their own right or inherited a dukedom.
By the time we get to the second episode, the Duchess is a widow. She is therefore styled ‘The Dowager Duchess of Richmond’. By the mid-20th century, the term ‘dowager’ had become unpopular. Widowed peeresses use their Christian name to distinguish themselves from the wife of the current title holder. Had she been born a 100 years later, the character would most likely have been known as Charlotte, Duchess of Richmond.
A duchess would be addressed as ‘your grace’ by servants and those of a lower social order. People within her social sphere would call her ‘duchess.’
Lady Maria Grey
The daughters of Earls use the style ‘lady’ before her Christian name. Note, if not using the full name, it is always ‘Lady Maria’ and never ‘Lady Grey’. The latter would suggest she was a peeress or the wife of a knight.
Fun fact: eldest sons of earls use a lordly style, but younger sons are reduced to ‘the honourable.’ All daughters of an earl are styled as ‘lady.’
The Dowager Countess of Templemore
As a widow of an earl, the character is strictly the ‘Dowager Countess of Templemore’. However, in day to day life she would be referred to as ‘Lady Templemore.’
If she were in the same household as her son’s wife (or visiting), servants may refer to her as ‘the dowager’ in order to distinguish between the two. But they would address her directly as ‘my lady.’
*
The series main characters, the Trenchards, are of lower status. They are trying to break into society. But this is not because they lack titles.
In the 1840s, most of England’s upper-class were untitled. What mattered was that your family had pedigree and land. In ‘Pride and Prejudice’ the untitled Mr Darcy is from the upper reaches of society.
The Trenchards are as rich as many of the titled characters. Even before his pedigree was discovered, Charles Pope would have been able to keep Lady Maria Grey in something resembling the style to which she had become accustomed. But that’s not the point.
The Trenchards could afford the trappings of the upper class but were not truly accepted among them
The Trenchards had the money – and even the land – to imitate the trappings of the upper class. But everyone knew how they’d got it.
Working for a living was dirty. Gentleman didn’t have to. Younger sons of landowner may have needed an income. They would find prestigious employment in the church or the army. At a push, the legal profession might be acceptable. But trade was unbecoming. Despite its lucrative rewards.
But all was not lost for the Trenchards. The upper classes had a short memory. By the early Victorian era, very few of them truly had pedigree from the high nobility. Their forefathers had, once upon a time, treaded the path of social progress. If the Trenchards were able to lose the ‘taint of trade’ they would be accepted as part of the gentry in a generation or two.
Setting Oliver free from the business and dispatching him to the country, as happened in the last episode, is no insult. By the time his ‘child’ reaches adulthood, there would be clear blue water between him and his grandfather’s business. He might finally be embraced as a gentleman.
This process was probably more subtle and fluid than I have sketched out above. You can see hints of it in the literature of the era. Austen’s Mr Darcy was keen to keep his friend Bingley from marriage to a Bennett girl. Jane’s family were on the fringes of the gentry. Their behaviour reinforced their modest status. Darcy could get away with marrying down. He was from the top-tier of the landed class. But Bingley had come up only recently. He was trying to lose the ‘taint of trade’ and needed to cover his blemishes with the best marriage possible.
None of this knowledge is important. The character inter-play, gripping narrative and beautiful production all speak for themselves.
But when you do know your stuff, the more you can appreciate just how well written and researched a series Belgravia is.
In the post, I stated my hunch – and it really was just a hunch – that upon marriage Harry would be created ‘Duke of Sussex’, a title he is rumoured to desire.
Perhaps I have more influence than I think. When the joyous news of the couple’s engagement was released, some media outlets were reporting as near certainty that America’s Meghan Markle would be transformed into Sussex’s Duchess upon marriage.
There are a number of logical reasons for thinking this. Most of the Dukedoms previously used for royalty are occupied and those that remain – such as Clarence – seem too tainted to touch.
But I still think that our popular media has jumped the gun. Let’s look at the other alternatives Her Majesty is presented with:
A new Dukedom could be invented – By tradition, only Dukedoms that have previously been wielded by a Royal are bestowed on a Prince. But it’s only a tradition. Perhaps a new location will be honoured. Duke of London? Duke of Glasgow? All are possible. True, Her Majesty is more traditionalist than innovator – but she broke all the ‘rules’ when she made her third son Earl of Wessex.
Harry could become ‘Duke of York in waiting’ – the monarch’s second son – which Harry will one day be – is traditionally created Duke of York. Clearly this cannot happen while Prince Andrew lives, but it should be noted that he has no son to succeed him. Perhaps Harry could have an Earldom bestowed upon marriage with the promise that he would one day become Duke of York when the title is vacant. This would mirror what happened with Prince Edward who will one day assume the title of Duke of Edinburgh.
Harry might get no title at all – I don’t think this is likely. But as far as I know, no monarch has previously been in the position where he/she needed to give two of grandsons peerages (George V’s brother was dead by the time George was made Duke of York). She might decide that it’s for Charles to dish out his second son’s title when he eventually gets the throne. She was, after all, quite happy to leave two of her cousin’s wives with the clumsy sounding styles of Princess Richard of Gloucester and Princess of Michael of Kent. Perhaps Meghan will simply be HRH Princess Henry of Wales. Stranger things have happened…
For what it’s worth, I still think Dukedom of Sussex is going to be the one that lands. I’ve read rumours that Harry has always wanted it (I have no idea if they’re true) and it seems that Her Majesty does take personal wishes into consideration. But to report it as a done deal – like so much of our media has (and don’t even get me started on the American press) is just continuing the trend of lazy journalism that bombards conversation on these topics.
So much of what I discuss on this site can never be truly known. The great thing about this subject is that it’s only a matter of months before time will tell…
Lately I’ve been diving into a wealth of books about the Henry VIII era. Having got a bit trapped in the Wars of the Roses last year, it’s been good to return to the Tudors, my first love.
As I read, I keep coming across references to Henry Fitzroy, the only acknowledged illegitimate son of the second Tudor King. He’s a character that, when time and energy permit, I’d like to learn more about. For now though, I wanted to blog some #QuickFireThoughts about the thing that all super-cool people are most interested in – the titles that were bestowed on him.
Keen Tudor fans will know that having been acknowledged as Henry VIII’s son since birth, in 1525, with the King increasingly sensitive about his lack of male heir, the six year old boy was elevated to the upper reaches of the English nobility and given the titles Duke of Richmond and Duke of Somerset. Some, both at the time and subsequently, believed that Henry was keeping his options open and considering a bastard succession.
What’s interesting about these titles is that they were both intrinsically linked to the Tudor dynasty. Edmund Tudor – Henry’s grandfather – had possessed the earldom of Richmond and his young wife, Margaret Beaufort was descended from the Earls and Dukes of Somerset. The Dukedom of Somerset had also been bestowed on an ill-fated son of Henry VII.
They are also both titles of impeccable Lancastrian pedigree. John of Gaunt himself had once been Earl of Richmond and, as just stated, the Somerset title had been wielded by his Beaufort offspring.
However, it occurs to me that had Henry wanted to use them, there were more explicitly royal titles at his disposal, particularly the Dukedom of York, which he himself had once possessed. Clarence might also have been a more appropriate choice for someone of princely status. Historians talk of Richmond and Somerset as being royal titles, but it seems to me that if anything, they can be more accurately described as ‘quasi Royal’.
Edmund Tudor was the half-brother of Henry VI and son of a French Princess, but strictly speaking, he had no claim to English royalty. Similarly, the Dukes of Somerset – the Beauforts – had been born illegitimate and were of questionable status. Even though they were legitimised after the marriage of their parents, the fact that the eldest was already an adult and that his half-brother would later explicitly (albeit futilely) bar his descendants from the royal succession, meant that the taint of bastardy never truly went away. The Beauforts were at best quasi-Royal.
Could it be then that at this stage, Henry was trying to establish his son not necessarily as a potential successor but as a member of the quasi-royalty? Associations of these titles would have been well known to contemporaries and it is difficult to think that they would have escaped the notice of the King himself. Henry would later give similar status to his daughters Mary and Elizabeth once he had divorced their mothers and declared them illegitimate.
Like I say, just a few #QuickFireThoughts – but it’s amazing what gets the brain ticking.
The reasons that the legendary King George V decided to abandon all German names, titles and distinctions in 1917 are well known. And let’s face it, kind of obvious. The proud but down-to-earth emperor was dismayed by comments that he presided over an ‘uninspiring and alien court’ to which he famously responded that he may be uninspiring but he’d be damned if he was alien! Thus, against such peculiar circumstances, was the house of Windsor born.
What is less know (well, unless you’re a super call Royal-watcher like me) is that just a few months later, George took the opportunity to shrink the Royal family, restricting the title of Prince and Princess and virtually abolishing the style of Highness.
On 30 November 1917,of 1917, letters patent were issued declaring that henceforth only the children of the sovereign, sons of sons of the sovereign and the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales would be entitles to the style of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince of Princess. Hitherto, male-line great-grandchildren of a sovereign could also call themselves Prince or Princess with the style of Highness.
Despite my obsession with Royalty in general and Royal titles in particular, I have never come by much in terms of a reason for the King’s decisions. This is no doubt mainly down to the fact that I so far limited my search to the internet; I have never yet had the chance to trawl through many of the excellent biographies of the war-time King, something I would love to do when time allows. But it might also be because the King’s own thoughts on the matter were fairly guarded.
Nonetheless I thought whacking out some #QuickFireThoughts on the subject would make a compelling blog post. I have three (all entirely speculative) theories as to why he felt the title stripping necessary. The first two I think are quite credible; the third more of a #WildCard:
George V wanted to start a fresh with the Royal family – It is quite believable that the earlier decision to Anglicise the house of Saxe-Coburgh-Gotha reminded everybody just how far flung the Royal family had become and just how intwined they were with continental (especially Germanic) Royalty. Perhaps the King also didn’t fancy the thought of a host of deposed demi-Royals from the continent fleeing to Britain and claiming Royal status as descendants of Queen Victoria for the next few years. This declaration would have limited Royalty almost (although not entirely) to those already domicile in the UK, largely eliminating that problem.
In the wake of monarchies falling, the time seemed right to shrink down the family-firm – Everywhere you looked European monarchies were crumbling. The Russian Tsar had been forced to abdicate earlier that year, and it was pretty obvious that others weren’t far behind. So, perhaps the British monarchy did what it does best; modernise to survive! We know that George V was keen to pump a bit more British blood into the veins of the house of Windsor and would allow his children to take local spouses; this whole project would be easier if there were less potential Royals to marry off. Also, perhaps he felt that the new house of Windsor really needed a fresh start and should be contained, primarily to his descendants. Regardless of his motivation, the move boasted incredible foresight; had he not made this change, Britain today would be positively littered with Princes and Princesses.
It was a personal vendetta against the Connaughts – Before I get into this, let me reiterate that this point firmly fits into the #WildCard category. But anyway, here we go! Although the 1917 letters patent but the ky-bosh on a number of continental royals potentially falling back on British titles once stripped of others, there was only one person who was actually affected by it at the time: Alastair, Earl of Macduff who prior to the LPs has been known as His Highness Prince Alastair of Connaught.I remember once reading somewhere (and I really can’t remember where) that George V had some kind of grudge against his Connaught cousins. Could it be that he wanted to alienate them from the Royal family. After all, young Alastair’s aunt, Princess Patricia of Connaught mysteriously ‘volunteered’ to give up her Royal style when she married in 1919. Perhaps this was no coincidence…
Anyway, perhaps one day I will have chance to read more about this and return to the subject. Until then, if anyone know more or has any views, I would be very grateful to hear them!
As regular readers know, as a historian I see myself as an amateur; but when it comes to questions of Royal titles – ah now that’s quite different. Here I consider myself an expert.
On this subject, people trust my knowledge. On this subject, I often get asked questions – questions I am only too happy to answer. Once question I’ve been asked a bit lately (okay only once. And I was the one that asked it. To myself. Even though I already knew the answer) is “when Prince Harry gets married, what title will his wife received and how will any eventual children of the marriage be styled?”
The answer, as ever, isn’t entirely straightforward. But as I like a challenge, I’ll wade in and answer it, making a few qualifications along the way.
If Prince Harry married NOW and there was no intervention from the Queen…
Than his lucky bride would be known as HRH Princess Henry of Wales.
“SAY WHAAAAT?!” I hear you cry. “That sounds weird at the best of times and who the heck is ‘Henry of Wales.’”
Okay, bear with, bear with. First of all we need to be clear on one thing. Despite the fact he is almost universally known as ‘Harry’ (I believe at his late mother’s request) William’s younger brother is technically called ‘Henry’ and on official documents is styled as such. Thanks to Letters Patent issued by his great-great-grandfather in 1917, as a son of a son of the sovereign he is entitled to the style of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince before his christian name. By custom, he takes the territorial designation from his father’s title (in this case ‘Wales’) and uses it as sort of surname with an ‘of’ in front of it.
In the British system, a wife literally feminises her husband’s style. So the wife of Mr Joe Bloggs is technically Mrs Joe Bloggs rather than Mrs Jane Bloggs, even if the latter is now more common social practice. Hence why Harry’s wife would rather clunkily be ‘HRH Princess Henry of Wales.’
As for the children? Well, let’s just suppose that in the lifetime of the Queen, Harry and his wife have two children and for sake of argument we’ll call them Andrew (after his uncle) and Catherine (after his sister in law). They would be known respectively as Lord Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and Lady Catherine Mountbatten-Windsor.
“Hold the phone!” I can sense you shout out loud as your coffee drops to the floor. “Mountbatten? What’s that about? And why on God’s earth aren’t these two fictitious young Royals a Prince and Princess.”
<Sigh.> I knew it would get to this. Okay, I’ll tell ya.
The Royal family are known as the ‘House and family of Windsor.’ There was some question mark over this when the Queen ascended (married women tend to take their husband’s name and Philip had adopted the surname of Mountbatten in 1947) but the then Prime Minister, Winston Churchill made it crystal clear. However a few years later, the Queen, no doubt wanting to recognise her husband, decreed that her and Philip’s male-line descendants who do NOT bear the style Royal Highness would carry the name ‘Mountbatten-Windsor.’
As far as their lack of Royal titles? The Letters Patent of 1917 (mentioned above) restricted the use of the Royal style so that male line great-grandchildren of a sovereign were no longer entitled to it (with the exception of the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. In fact the Queen had to intervene to ensure that Charlotte was born a Princess). Instead, it made provisions for them to have the same titles as the children of Dukes – the right to prefix their Christian name with the title ‘Lord’ or ‘Lady.’
HOWEVER, when Charles ascends the throne, everything changes. Now, these two offspring would be male-line grandchildren of a sovereign and would be bumped up to HRH with the titular dignity of Prince or Princess. And Harry’s title would change too – he would lose ‘Wales’ and gain the definite article, becoming HRH The Prince Henry, with his wife upgrading to HRH The Princess Henry.
But in reality, there would probably be some intervention from the Queen
When Harry marries he will probably be given a peerage most likely a Dukedom, but potentially an Earldom like Prince Edward. Even if this doesn’t happen on marriage, it is highly likely to take place once Charles ascends. If then he is created (let’s say) ‘Duke of Sussex’ (the title he is rumoured to desire) than it’s good news for his wife. She would then be styled Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex.
It is also possible that a change will be made with the children. Given that they will one day be grandchildren of a sovereign and entitled to the Princely style, the Queen might decide to bring that day forward and give it to them straight away. She has that power.
But more worryingly, there is a third alternative. We hear much talk of Charles wanting to ‘shrink’ the Royal family. While this would be disastrous for Royal watchers like me, there is a chance that he may further restrict HRH to those in direct line of succession – freeing his other descendants from the burden or privilege (depending how you see it) of Royal titles. As such Harry’s children may never be technically considered Royal – although this is entirely speculation.
Well there you go. That was an adventure, wasn’t it? Stay tuned for more super-coolness just around the corner.
Shockingly, my friends and family are not always keen for me to recite my fascinating knowledge of Royal history in their presence. Even more puzzling to me – and something that will no doubt surprise loyal readers – my loved ones have often found my attempts to educate them on the intricacies of Royal and aristocratic titles objectionable. Puzzling!
However, ever since the great Royal wedding of 2011, there’s one question which a number of those close to me have been keen to ask. Namely, why was Diana ‘made a Princess’ when Kate wasn’t?
I can certainly understand why people ask. After all, from 1981 until 1997, William’s mother was constantly referred to in the media as ‘Princess Diana.’ Yet when Kate got hitched the palace seemed to go out of their way to make it clear that it was not entirely appropriate to call her ‘Princess Catherine.’
A number of my friends have drawn their own conclusions as to why. “It’s because Diana was married to the immediate heir to the throne,” said one, or “Diana was Princess of Wales and Kate is just a Duchess” speculated another.
Both quite logical, but both incorrect. To get to the bottom of this, we need to understand two things.
The later Princess of Wales was NEVER ‘Princess Diana.’
This might come as a surprise to some; the media heavily referred to her as such, both during and after her marriage. But it is only Princesses by birth who use their Christian names in their title. Diana was indeed the Princess of Wales and even The Princess Charles but technically never Princess Diana.
Sounds quirky doesn’t it? But actually this isn’t unusual. I remember when my mother was invited to the Buckingham Palace garden party, her invite was addressed to “Mrs Gary Streeter.” But her name is not Gary. It is Janet. Similarly the wife of a younger son of a Duke or Marquess does not use her Christian name in her title (remember good old Lady Colin Campbell…?).
But Kate is a Princess and during her marriage, so was Diana
Just because you can’t use your Christian name in your style (or more accurately, doing so wouldn’t be the most appropriate action in the eyes of the court) does not mean that you are not a Princess. Anyone married to a Prince is a Princess. This is as true for Camilla and Sophie as it is for Kate and was true for Diana and Sarah Ferguson during their marriages. It is equally the case for the Duchesses of Kent and Gloucester and for Princess Michael of Kent.
So how can the great public tell which noble women are or are not Princesses? Easy. Three little letters: HRH (standing for Her Royal Highness). Since 1917 the style of Royal Highness has been synonymous with the rank of Prince or Princess in the UK (yes, yes, yes I know there may have been an exception with the Duke of Edinburgh but exceptions prove the rule and I will write about this on another occasion). Therefore The Duchess of Norfolk is not a Princess or member of the Royal family but HRH The Duchess of Gloucester is.
Make sense? Don’t worry if it’s a little confusing. No one ever sat down and made a list of rules that governed how Royal titles and styles fit together and operate. Customs have emerged over centuries and in reality the current system is a hybrid of ancient English and Scottish practice that merged with the Germanic approach in 1714 and has been evolving in response to circumstance ever since. But hey, let’s face it…that’s all part of the fun!
Okay geeks…over to you? Is this system all a little archaic? Should we just suck it up and call her ‘Princess Catherine’? Do you think William will modernise Royal styles when he eventually gets to the throne?
The birth of Princess Charlotte of Cambridge brought joy to the nation last year. But the changes to the laws of succession raise fascinating questions as to the Royal titles that she might bear during her life.
Before I started Royal History Geeks I used to pen a blog called ‘UK Royal Titles.’ Given the relative obscurity of the subject matter, it was fairly well read. (It also proved, in case there was any doubt, that as a human being, I occupy the pinnacle of coolness).
Perhaps because of my expertise in such matters (LOL), a few people have asked me about what title our precious little Princess Charlotte of Cambridge will be entitled to as she progresses throughout her life. The answer to this is slightly trickier than it might seem.
Certain title evolutions are easy to predict. Short of some major change in approach she will always retain the style of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Princess. Upon her grandfather’s accession she will officially by styled HRH Princess Charlotte of Cambridge and Cornwall and, in the likely event of William’s creation as Prince of Wales, HRH Princess Charlotte of Wales. When William finally reaches the throne she would lose the territorial designation and gain the definite article, becoming HRH The Princess Charlotte. Should she ever marry, some documents will style her with her husband’s status following on from her title e.g. The Princess Charlotte, Mrs John Smith or The Princess Charlotte, Duchess of Norfolk.
But the real question I get asked is ‘will Charlotte ever be made Princess Royal?’ Because this is a title that can only be bestowed (by convention) on the oldest daughter of a sovereign, commentators have correctly noted that Charlotte is the most likely candidate to receive it; but we need to be clear – that doesn’t make it a done deal. There are in fact, three factors that could come between Charlotte and the title:
The longevity of Princess Anne – As the eldest daughter of Queen Elizabeth II, Anne was granted the title in 1987. However, despite the fact that (if all goes as it should) she will one day be the sister and then Aunt of the King, she keeps the title with her for life. When the Queen ascended in 1952 her Aunt Mary was still Princess Royal. She died in 1965 but the Queen left it over 20 years before dusting off the honour in favour of her daughter. Anne could live well into William’s reign. Should he decide that a respectful gap should be left between the death of one Princess Royal and the creation of a new one (which is perhaps what influenced the Queen’s decision) than the title could end up skipping Charlotte altogether.
William just might not decide to give it to her – It isn’t obvious what the reason for this would be, but – like most Royal honours – it is given only at the discretion of the sovereign. Her father may simply choose never to give Charlotte the title.
Charlotte could, instead, be made a Duchess – This is something I’ve been thinking about ever since the succession laws were changed to give men and women an equal shot at ascension. There is still a great deal of male-bias in the dishing out of Royal titles and perhaps William – or Charles before him – will seek to modernise. Upon marriage, it is conventional for the sons of monarchs to be given Dukedoms – a title that will shape the eventual style of their descendants. If William decides that his daughter, who will rank above any future sons of his in the succession, also deserves a Dukedom (and become, for example, ‘Duchess of Sussex’), than it is quite possible that the title of ‘Princess Royal’ could fall from favour all together. Certainly it is safe to assume that eldest daughters of Kings and Queens who are also the eldest child will be Princess of Wales. Perhaps ‘Princess Royal’ and even ‘Prince Royal’ could become the standard honour, when available, for the sovereign’s second child.
Anyhow, this is all speculation. At the moment we cannot know. But the great things is – unlike in so many of the cases this blog explores – one day, we should actually find out!
Okay geeks…over to you. How would YOU like to see these Royal titles evolve in the future?
.jpg)
