People just do not get it. They think they understand titles, but they do stumble and fall over themselves when trying to assure others that they are correct about British royal titles. Witness the confusion over the titles of the Prince of Wales.
The present heir to the throne has never been styled as HRH The Prince Charles except in Scotland when the Court Circular refers to him as The Prince Charles as the Duke of Rothesay.
In Britain, children take their rank from their fathers and not their mothers with few exceptions. The most notable exception is that of Sovereign. Several peerages can be inherited by women, and their children take their rank from their mother, a peer.
In 1948, Princess Elizabeth, heiress presumptive to the British throne, was expecting her first child by her husband, HRH The Duke of Edinburgh. According to law and tradition, the child would take his or her rank from the Duke of Edinburgh, which would provide the children with a surname (Mountbatten) and a courtesy title (Earl of Merioneth for the eldest son and Lady Christian name Mountbatten for a daughter.)
Despite Elizabeth's position, she could not pass her rank to her children until she succeeded to the throne. For her children to be royal from birth, her father, George VI, decreed that Elizabeth's children should have the style of HRH and the title Prince or Princess from birth. This was promulgated through a Letters Patent, issued a week before the Princess gave birth to a son, Charles.
Whitehall, November 9, 1948.
The KING has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm bearing date the 22nd ultimo to define and fix the style and title by which the children of the marriage solemnized between Her Royal Highness The Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh and His Royal Highness Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, shall be designated. It is declared by the Letters Patent that the children of the aforesaid marriage shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style title or attribute of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names in addition to any other appellations and titles of honour which may belong to them hereafter.
The new little prince's official style, as a Prince of the United of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, was HRH Prince Charles of Edinburgh.
This title changed at the moment of Queen Elizabeth II's ascension on February 6, 1952. HRH Prince Charles of Edinburgh, as the heir apparent, became HRH The Duke of Cornwall and HRH Duke of Rothesay.
Children of the sovereign have The before their names, but this applies only to those children of the Sovereign, who do not have other titles. Thus, Charles has never been HRH The Prince Charles. He is a Prince of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland whose Christian name is Charles. The media refers to him as Prince Charles, because he is a prince and his name is Charles. Prince Charles, however, is not his title. HRH The Princess Anne ceased to be styled as such when she married. She became HRH The Princess Anne, Mrs. Mark Phillips. But when the marriage had broken down, the Queen bestowed the title Princess Royal on her only daughter. The previous Princess Royal died in 1965. The title Princess Royal confers no special rank or privilege. It merely signifies the eldest or only daughter of the Sovereign, but can only be held by one princess at a time.) Anne's official title and style is HRH The Princess Royal. She is a princess and her name is Anne, but her Christian name is no longer apart of her official title.
After his mother came to the throne, Charles would have been styled as HRH The Prince Charles if the eldest son of the sovereign did not have a basketful of titles for the special use of the heir to the throne.
In 1958, the Queen announced that she would bestow on her eldest son, the titles of Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester. Thus, HRH The Duke of Cornwall ceased to be styled as the Duke of Cornwall. The new official title: HRH The Prince of Wales. (In Scotland, the Prince of Wales is officially styled as HRH The Duke of Rothesay, which was the title reserved for the heir to the Scots throne, just as Wales and Cornwall were used for the heirs to the English throne.)
Charles' younger brothers, Andrew and Edward, were officially styled as HRH The Prince Andrew and HRH The Prince Edward until the mornings of their weddings when it was announced that they would now be styled as HRH The Duke of York and HRH The Earl of Wessex.
Andrew and Edward have not ceased to be princes, but they ceased to be HRH The Prince .... Marriage made Sarah Ferguson and Sophie Rhys-Jones Princesses of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Being a princess is their rank ... and their profession. Sarah was styled as HRH The Duchess of York before her divorce, and Sophie is HRH The Countess of Wessex.
Sarah was never HRH The Princess Andrew and Sophie is not HRH The Princess Edward. Why? Because their husbands' ceased to be styled by their own names when the queen created the York and Wessex peerages. If the Queen had not created these peerages for her younger sons, Sarah would have been styled as HRH The Princess Andrew, and Sophie would be HRH The Princess Edward.
This can be seen in several other examples. When HRH Prince Richard of Gloucester married Brigitte van Deurs, the new Princess became HRH Princess Richard of Gloucester. She became HRH The Duchess of Gloucester when Richard succeeded his father. Her rank and profession remain as a princess. HRH Prince Michael of Kent's wife is HRH Princess Michael of Kent.
Although she was a Duchess in her own right, HH The Duchess of Fife (HH Princess Alexandra) married HRH Prince Arthur of Connaught, her official style and title was HRH Princess Arthur of Connaught. The HRH and the title Princess trumped a non-royal dukedom. She was not HRH The Duchess of Fife. Alexandra did not cease to be the Duchess of Fife, but her title and style were HRH Princess Arthur of Connaught, as she was the wife of a royal prince.
In 1934, HRH The Duke of Kent married Princess Marina of Greece and Denmark. It was common for the media to refer to the couple as Prince George and Princess Marina, but this was incorrect. HRH The Prince George (he was the son of a sovereign) ceased to be HRH The Prince George when his father created him as Duke of Kent. Princess Marina was a Greek princess by birth, and a British princess by marriage. If George V had not created his son as the Duke of Kent, Marina's official style in the UK would have been HRH The Princess George.
But, Marlene, she was a princess in her own right ... yes, in Greece, but not in the UK. But, Marlene, she was styled as HRH Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent, after her eldest son was married in 1961 ... yes, but she could not have done that on her own.
Marina did not want to be styled as HRH The Dowager Duchess of Kent. She asked her niece, Queen Elizabeth II if she could be styled as HRH Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent.
HRH Duchess of Gloucester, who was styled as the Dowager Duchess of Gloucester, made a similar request to the Queen. She wanted to be known as HRH Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester, following the precedent set by Marina. (It remains irrelevant that Marina was a princess by birth, and Alice was the daughter of a Duke because they had the same rank in the United Kingdom).
Thus, Queen Elizabeth II graciously agreed to allow her aunts' official style to include their own names. The two women were widows, and both had served the monarchy for many years. It must be noted that the Queen never issued a Letters Patent for these two examples.
What about the wife of the Prince of Wales. For starters, she is a princess of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ... that's her rank .. and that's her profession. She's not Princess Camilla? Why? Because she is not a British princess by birth. Is she HRH The Princess Charles?
No? Why? Because her husband's official title does not include HRH The Prince Charles. Why? Because he was never styled as HRH The Prince Charles.
Why? Charles is his name, and he is a Prince. When Mummy became Queen, Charles skipped the HRH The Prince Charles and went straight to HRH The Duke of Cornwall, and HRH The Duke of Rothesay. Automatic. No need for a decree or a letters patent. Pass The and go Straight to Duke.
The Heir to the Throne can also be known as the Prince of Wales, but this is not automatic. The Sovereign has to make it happen with an official announcement. This is what the Queen did. She created her son as Prince of Wales ... he remained the Duke of Cornwall but the Prince of Wales title trumps Duke of Cornwall (but not the Duke of Rothesay).
The wife of the Prince of Wales is the Princess of Wales. Camilla is HRH The Princess of Wales, but she is styled as HRH The Duchess of Cornwall. She is also HRH The Duchess of Rothesay (in Scotland).
The day after the Prince of Wales' first marriage to The Lady Diana Spencer, Buckingham Palace issued a statement regarding the title. Diana's official title was HRH The Princess of Wales.
"So far as we are concerned she is 'the Princess of Wales.' Although she could often be called simply 'the Princess,' is she not 'Princess Diana,'" a spokesman said.
Charles is a prince. He was born HRH Prince Charles of Edinburgh, morphed into HRH The Duke of Cornwall and HRH The Duke of Rothesay, and then created The Prince of Wales, becoming HRH The Prince of Wales ... at no point was Charles ever styled HRH Prince Charles. He's a prince, his name is Charles, and he is HRH The Prince of Wales.
Got it now. .
You must be reading royalforums!
ReplyDeletewould you please explain why it is that people who are BORN a prince/princess are often given titles (upon marriage or coming of age depending on the family) that include things like Duke and Earl? aren't those positions lower than prince/princess? many people are dukes or earls, but they are commoners... so why do royals have those titles REPLACE their prince/princess title? i've always wondered that... especially in Edward's case, because apparently he's going to inherit the Edinburgh dukedom (or so i've read) but he's an earl at present. why not make him a duke straight off?
ReplyDeleteThat's the best explanation I heard yet (and I've heard a lot of them. Good job!
ReplyDeleteTo Badger - I never read the British stuff there.
ReplyDeleteTo Michelle. The titles given to a member of the royal family do not provide a separate precedence. Dukes and earls are not commoners. Peers of the Realm (a duke, marquess, earl, viscout, & baron -- or Lord of Parliament - which is the fifth grade of the Scottish peerage) are not commoners. The Sovereign is not a commoner. Children of peers are commoners. Lady Diana Spencer bore a courtesy title as the daughter of an earl, but she herself was a commoner. Prince William is legally a commoner. He is neither a sovereign nor a peer of the realm.
It has been a tradition going many centuries for royal sons to be created as dukes. The duke of Cornwall was the first dukedom in the peerage of England
There are several different categories of peerages: Peerage of England, Peerage of Scotland, Peerage of Ireland, Peerage of Great Britain and the most recent, Peerage of the United Kingdom. The peerages of England and Scotland are the oldest peerages.
Edward of Woodstock, the Black Prince, was the first Duke of Cornwall and also the first Prince of Wales.
These titles - and the other peerages that were created - were at first largely territorial. Families had estates in these areas. Gloucester and York are among oldest of the royal dukdoms - that have been created in English and Scottish royal history. The men who are created dukes remain princes .. their rank and profession do not change. It is customary for the sons of the sovereign to be created a duke on the occasion of a marriage or coming of age - or even in childhood.
Edward is not going to inherit his father's dukedom. The letters patent creating the title provides for the succession of Philip's male heirs. Thus, if Philip dies before Elizabeth, Charles succeeds as Duke of Edinburgh, and will remain as Duke until he becomes king when the title reverts to the Crown and he can re-create it for his brother. Edward will not be created Duke of Edinburgh until his both his parents are dead, and his brother is king.
Edward would have been created a duke on his wedding day if not for several factors - all of the years of bad press, the breakup of the marriages, and so on - if Charles and Diana and Andrew & Sarah were still married and things were different, Edward would be a duke - and his kids would be styled as royals ...but the queen was advised that it might not be a good thing to have another duke at present - and not have the children styled as royals, even though the 1917 letters patent makes it clear that grandchildren of the sovereign in the male line are royal and princes.
typo on my part - Edwawrd I named his son, the future Edward II, as the first "English" prince of Wales - young Edward was born in Wales.
ReplyDeletebut legally, the Wessex kids are still Prince James & Princess Louise with HRH, aren't they? i know they aren't referred to that way... Lady Louise, Viscount Severn... but for them to legally be anything less than that, the Queen would have to do more than just issue a statement, wouldn't she? who knows, maybe the kids are better off this way, they seem to have lived relatively sheltered lives compared to their cousins... but if they come of age and decide they want to use the style & title they were born into, can they do so on their own?
ReplyDeleteMichelle,
ReplyDeleteaccording to the 1917 Letters Patent, the children are legally entitled to be styled as HRH and Prince or Princess. However, the sovereign is the fount of all honours so she can do what she wants in terms of a style, even without the need for a LP.
Louise and James will not be able to adopt the royal style at 18. They are going to live largely private lives and will not be expected to carry out royal duties when they do reach a certain age.
Marlene,
ReplyDeleteOf course everything you wrote is entirely true (naturally, given that you are a genuine expert). Part of the problem, though, is that organs of the Royal Household itself seem to be confused. The Court Circular has multiple times referred to the Prince of Wales in Scotland not as simply "The Duke of Rothesay," but as "The Prince Charles, Duke of Rothesay." Obviously, this is against all precedent, but someone at Court is writing it. Also, on the Prince's own website, they list his title as "His Royal Highness Prince Charles Philip Arthur George, Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall..." Totally incorrect, of course, but it seems that the Prince himself is ignorant of his own title. It's ridiculous.
In the case of the POW's site, he is listed by his names and titles --- He is Prince Charles Philip Arthur George -- but that's now how he is styled. I've also seemn HRH The Prince of Wales as the Duke of Rothesay.
ReplyDeleteYou say William is a commoner despite now also being a peer of the realm? Surely you jest?
ReplyDeleteHe was a comnmoner until created a peer of the realm. Prince Harry is a commoner
ReplyDelete