"His/Her Royal Highness"-heraldry
Olav Ståle Søvik of Camster
How can a member of nobility call himself "HRH"?
Example: "HRH the Count of Paris"
How can heirs of a HRH Duke call themselves
Prince/Princess of the dukedoms they are heirs to?
What happens if a princess marries a normal man? Can the man use the
title "prince"? Does she lose her title? Is she still a princess and
her housband a normal man?
Louis Epstein
Olav Ståle Søvik of Camster (oso...@sn.no) wrote:
:
: How can a member of nobility call himself "HRH"?
The Count of Paris is the heir male of Louis Philippe,King of the French;
he does not call himself King,but he does use a royal style.
: How can heirs of a HRH Duke call themselves
: Prince/Princess of the dukedoms they are heirs to?
By being heirs of a SOVEREIGN duke who enjoyed royal styles.
: What happens if a princess marries a normal man? Can the man use the
: title "prince"?
No.
: Does she lose her title?
Only if her Sovereign and/or house laws say so.
: Is she still a princess and
: her housband a normal man?
Probably.
Paul J. Silver
Louis Epstein wrote:
>
>
> : Is she still a princess and
> : her housband a normal man?
>
> Probably.
Princess Margaret married a commoner and was still Princess Margaret.
Whether AAJ is a normal man, well who knows.
Anton Sherwood
Olav Ståle Søvik of Camster <oso...@sn.no> says:
: How can heirs of a HRH Duke call themselves
: Prince/Princess of the dukedoms they are heirs to?
I assume you're referring to such forms as "Princess Eugenie of York".
The parts of her style have independent origins. She is (as a child
of a son of the Queen) a Princess (of the UKGBNI), and she is called
"of York" to distinguish her from potential cousins also named Eugenie.
(Who can say when the UK last had two living Princes/ses with the same
name?)
She would still be "Princess Eugenie" if her father had no peerages.
--
Anton Sherwood *\\* +1 415 267 0685 *\\* DAS...@netcom.com
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within
the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." --Claire Wolfe
Olav Ståle Søvik of Camster
das...@netcom.com (Anton Sherwood) wrote:
> Olav Ståle Søvik of Camster <oso...@sn.no> says:
>: How can heirs of a HRH Duke call themselves
>: Prince/Princess of the dukedoms they are heirs to?
>I assume you're referring to such forms as "Princess Eugenie of York".
>The parts of her style have independent origins. She is (as a child
>of a son of the Queen) a Princess (of the UKGBNI), and she is called
>"of York" to distinguish her from potential cousins also named Eugenie.
>(Who can say when the UK last had two living Princes/ses with the same
>name?)
-Yes, I do. Well it sounds a little strange when your children are
princesses of a place and you are a duke of the same place. Most
people would problably look at the princesses of York superior to the
duke of York, would they not?
j...@internet.no
oso...@sn.no (Olav Ståle Søvik of Camster) wrote:
>What happens if a princess marries a normal man? Can the man use the
>title "prince"? Does she lose her title? Is she still a princess and
>her housband a normal man?
What do you mean by "normal man"?
When Claus von Amsberg married to Crownprincess Beatrix, he was
delivered from beeing a "normal man" to becoming a prince. The same
happened in Denmark. Do you think after all that both Claus and
Henrik have stopped to function as "normal men" after that?
In the Netherlands the Gouvernement last year had to handle a
Parliamental motion which was based on the Constitutional Rights for
Equality between man and wife. The goal for this motion was to secure
that nobel titles also should be granted via women and that childern
in a mixed marriage could inheret the mothers name (and title).
The motion did not speak especially about "men marrying nobel ladies"
but in the name of equality men as well should be able to "take" her
name (and title) in the same way as women can "take " his name and
title.
If this motion should be accepted, much will change in the Dutch
Aristocracy and you, Olav of Laird could try to marry a Dutch
Baronesse in order to secure yourself a title.
Once again, good luck!
Jan
Anton Sherwood
Anton Sherwood <das...@netcom.com> writes
[...]
: (Who can say when the UK last had two living Princes/ses with the same
: name?)
From 1964 to 1972 there were three Princes Edward: the dukes of Windsor
and Kent, and Queen Elizabeth's youngest son.
Before them, Princess Marie of Edinburgh (1875-1938; queen of Roumania)
and Princess Mary of York/Wales/Royal (1897-1965).
Olav Ståle Søvik of Camster
>I assume you're referring to such forms as "Princess Eugenie of York".
>The parts of her style have independent origins. She is (as a child
>of a son of the Queen) a Princess (of the UKGBNI), and she is called
>"of York" to distinguish her from potential cousins also named Eugenie.
>(Who can say when the UK last had two living Princes/ses with the same
>name?)
>She would still be "Princess Eugenie" if her father had no peerages.
-What happenes when HRH Duke Andrew of York dies? Does the eldest
daughter become "HRH Duchess Eugeine of York"? Is the other daughter
still "HRH Princess of York"?
Where are these "laws" written?
Anton Sherwood
Olav Ståle Søvik of Camster <oso...@sn.no> writes
: -What happenes when HRH Duke Andrew of York dies? Does the eldest
: daughter become "HRH Duchess Eugeine of York"?
No, because like most ducal titles it passes to sons only.
: Is the other daughter still "HRH Princess of York"?
Both of them.
: Where are these "laws" written?
Well, one book that I use is _British Titles_ (1951) by Valentine Heywood.
Olav Ståle Søvik of Camster
>Olav Ståle Søvik of Camster <oso...@sn.no> writes:
-What happenes when HRH Duke Andrew of York dies? Does the eldest
daughter become "HRH Duchess Eugeine of York"?
>No, because like most ducal titles it passes to sons only.
-Really? I did not know that at all. How come? What happenes with the
duke-title then when Prince Andrew does not have any sons?
Does the Duke of York also have got the title "Prince"?
Does he usually style his name as: "HRH Prince Andrew, Duke of York"?
I will order the book you mentioned as soon as possible.
The Duke of Kent
HRH Prince Michael of Kent can't be the duke of Kent's son, because he
is to old to be so. Is the duke of Kent the former Duke of Kent's
oldest son? Is HRH Prince Michael of Kent the youngest son of the
former Duke of Kent? What titles will the sons and daughters of HRH
Prince Michael of Kent and HRH the Duke of Kent have got?
Olav Ståle Søvik of Camster
j...@internet.no wrote:
>oso...@sn.no (Olav Ståle Søvik of Camster) wrote:
>>What happens if a princess marries a normal man? Can the man use the
>>title "prince"? Does she lose her title? Is she still a princess and
>>her housband a normal man?
>What do you mean by "normal man"?
-I mean a common.
Anton Sherwood
Good luck! I found it ten years ago in one of the many fine
second-hand shops in Hay-on-Wye (a village on the Welsh border).
: HRH Prince Michael of Kent can't be the duke of Kent's son, because he
: is to old to be so. Is the duke of Kent the former Duke of Kent's
: oldest son? Is HRH Prince Michael of Kent the youngest son of the
: former Duke of Kent?
Yes. He and the duke also have a sister Alexandra.
: What titles will the sons and daughters of HRH
: Prince Michael of Kent and HRH the Duke of Kent have got?
They are Lord/Lady ______ Windsor.
Lord George Windsor is in line to be third duke of Kent.
Olav Ståle Søvik of Camster
>They are Lord/Lady ______ Windsor.
>Lord George Windsor is in line to be third duke of Kent.
So you could say it like this:
HRH Duke -> HRH Prince of dukedom/duchy -> Lord ???
Is the lord/lady a "HRH"?
Louis Epstein
Olav Ståle Søvik of Camster (oso...@sn.no) wrote:
:
: >Olav Ståle Søvik of Camster <oso...@sn.no> writes:
: -What happenes when HRH Duke Andrew of York dies? Does the eldest
: daughter become "HRH Duchess Eugeine of York"?
:
: >No, because like most ducal titles it passes to sons only.
:
: -Really? I did not know that at all. How come? What happenes with the
: duke-title then when Prince Andrew does not have any sons?
It becomes extinct.Probably to be recreated yet again for a son of a
future Sovereign.
: The Duke of Kent
:
: HRH Prince Michael of Kent can't be the duke of Kent's son, because he
: is to old to be so. Is the duke of Kent the former Duke of Kent's
: oldest son? Is HRH Prince Michael of Kent the youngest son of the
: former Duke of Kent?
Yes.
: What titles will the sons and daughters of HRH
: Prince Michael of Kent and HRH the Duke of Kent have got?
Prince Michael's children are styled Lord and Lady;the Duke's are
the Earl of St. Andrews,Lord Nicholas,and Lady Helen.Lady Helen's
sons have no title,as will be the case with any children of Lord
Nicholas;Lord St. Andrews has a son styled Lord Downpatrick and
two daughters styled Lady,if he has any more sons they will be
styled Hon. until he becomes Duke and then become "Lord [name]".
Louis Epstein
: >Lord George Windsor is in line to be third duke of Kent.
He's not "Lord George Windsor" but "Earl of St. Andrews",the Duke's
second title which he bears by courtesy(not substantively).His son
uses the Duke's third title,Lord Downpatrick.When they succeed they
will be regular "Grace" dukes,not "HRH" dukes.
: So you could say it like this:
: HRH Duke -> HRH Prince of dukedom/duchy -> Lord ???
:
: Is the lord/lady a "HRH"?
Nope...not even an HH any more.
Anton Sherwood
Louis Epstein <l...@put.com> writes
: He's not "Lord George Windsor" but "Earl of St. Andrews",the Duke's
: second title which he bears by courtesy(not substantively). [...]
I didn't want to confuse Olav with courtesy titles. He is Lord
George substantively, even if he's not normally called that -- I
understand that if he were to appear in a court of law he'd be called
"Lord George Windsor, known as Earl of St.Andrews".
Klaus Ole Kristiansen
l...@put.com (Louis Epstein) writes:
>: What happens if a princess marries a normal man? Can the man use the
>: title "prince"?
>No.
It does happen. Henrik became a prince on his wedding day, e.g. AFAIK
he was created a prince, it was not automatic, but it would have been
a major surprice if he had not become a prince.
Klaus O K
Olav Ståle Søvik of Camster
What is "courtesy titles"?
Louis Epstein
:
Titles by which people are known as a courtesy because of their parentage.
In the UK the heirs apparent to Earls,Marquesses,and Dukes are generally
known by lesser titles held by the head of the family(and those heirs
apparent to Marquesses or Dukes who are by courtesy styled as Marquesses
or Earls can have still lower titles used for *their* heirs apparent).
The daughters of Earls,Marquesses,and Dukes are styled Lady [their names],
and the younger sons of Marquesses and Dukes are styled Lord [their
names];all other children of peers are Hon. [their names].
However,unless specifically granted peerages of their own,no children
of peers are themselves peers or peeresses....they just bear titles as
a courtesy.
The Duke of Buccleuch's son is generally known as Earl of Dalkeith,
but in court papers naming him an executor of the will of the late
Duke of Northumberland,he was referred to as Richard W.J. Montagu
Douglas Scott,which is who he is legally.
Louis Epstein
Anton Sherwood (das...@netcom.com) wrote:
: Louis Epstein <l...@put.com> writes
: : He's not "Lord George Windsor" but "Earl of St. Andrews",the Duke's
: : second title which he bears by courtesy(not substantively). [...]
:
: I didn't want to confuse Olav with courtesy titles. He is Lord
: George substantively, even if he's not normally called that -- I
: understand that if he were to appear in a court of law he'd be called
: "Lord George Windsor, known as Earl of St.Andrews".
I'm not aware that anybody is *substantively* "Lord [personal name]".
if children of HRH grandsons are,no one else is.Otherwise,it's a
courtesy title itself.
Olav Ståle Søvik of Camster
Can a princely duke call himself "His Serene Highness"?
ccz...@szn1.nott.ac.uk
Anton Sherwood wrote:
> Louis Epstein <l...@put.com> writes
> : He's not "Lord George Windsor" but "Earl of St. Andrews",the Duke's
> : second title which he bears by courtesy(not substantively). [...]
> I didn't want to confuse Olav with courtesy titles. He is Lord
> George substantively,
He can't be "Lord George" substantively because "Lord George" isn't a
substantive title (unless one tried to claim it is a barony which it
obviously isn't). It is a courtesy title. Substantive titles and coutesy
titles are mutually exclusive.
> ... even if he's not normally called that
(He isn't called that at all.)
> -- I
> understand that if he were to appear in a court of law he'd be called
> "Lord George Windsor, known as Earl of St.Andrews".
He certainly wouldn't be referred to as "{courtesy title 1} known as
{courtesy title 2}". Even for the non-royal eldest son of a royal duke,
I think the correct legal designation is something like "George Windsor,
Esq., commonly known as the Earl of St. Andrews".
ccz...@szn1.nott.ac.uk
Anton Sherwood wrote:
>
> Olav Ståle Søvik of Camster <oso...@sn.no> writes
> : -What happenes when HRH Duke Andrew of York dies? Does the eldest
> : daughter become "HRH Duchess Eugeine of York"?
> No, because like most ducal titles it passes to sons only.
However, even if through some mechanism she should succeed to the
dukedom, she would be "H.R.H. the Duchess of York". Names are never
attached to peerage titles in the above manner. As a very general rule,
one might say that the more prestigious a title the less likelihood of
it including the holder's name. For some reason which I don't
understand, many foreigners seem to believe exactly the opposite.
> : Is the other daughter still "HRH Princess of York"?
> Both of them.
Neither of them. They are both: "Princess of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland". If anything, the "of York" part is more
in the nature of a surname.
> : Where are these "laws" written?
> Well, one book that I use is _British Titles_ (1951) by Valentine Heywood.
A second edition was published in 1953.
ccz...@szn1.nott.ac.uk
Olav Ståle Søvik of Camster wrote:
> >Olav Ståle Søvik of Camster <oso...@sn.no> writes:
> -What happenes when HRH Duke Andrew of York dies? Does the eldest
> daughter become "HRH Duchess Eugeine of York"?
> >No, because like most ducal titles it passes to sons only.
> -Really? I did not know that at all. How come? What happenes with the
> duke-title then when Prince Andrew does not have any sons?
(1) Because those are the terms of the letters patent creating the
dukedom (and the two accompanying titles); (2) It becomes extinct.
> Does the Duke of York also have got the title "Prince"?
Yes - indeed, until his marriage, he was known as "Prince Andrew".
> Does he usually style his name as: "HRH Prince Andrew, Duke of York"?
"H.R.H. the Duke of York".
> I will order the book you mentioned as soon as possible.
I very much doubt Heywood is still in print.
> The Duke of Kent
> HRH Prince Michael of Kent can't be the duke of Kent's son, because he
> is to old to be so. Is the duke of Kent the former Duke of Kent's
> oldest son?
The (present) Duke of Kent is the late Duke's elder son.
> Is HRH Prince Michael of Kent the youngest son of the
> former Duke of Kent?
Prince Michael of Kent is the late Duke's younger son.
("Former" implies that the late Duke ended his life not being a duke cf
"former" in "The former King Edward VIII was created Duke of Windsor.")
> What titles will the sons and daughters of HRH
> Prince Michael of Kent and HRH the Duke of Kent have got?
The Duke of Kent's children have the titles associated with those of any
duke i.e. father's second title for the eldest son (Earl of St. Andrews
in this case), "Lady" plus christian name for duaghters, "Lord" plus
christian name for younger sons.
Prince Michael of Kent's children are just "Lord" plus christian name
and "Lady" plus christian name.
ccz...@szn1.nott.ac.uk
Anton Sherwood wrote:
> Olav Ståle Søvik of Camster <oso...@sn.no> writes
> Lord George Windsor is in line to be third duke of Kent.
The Duke of Kent's elder son is known as the Earl of St. Andrews. "Lord"
implies a younger son (as is the case with Lord Nicholas Windsor, the
Duke's younger son).
Anton Sherwood
: > Louis Epstein <l...@put.com> writes
: > : He's not "Lord George Windsor" but "Earl of St. Andrews",the Duke's
: > : second title which he bears by courtesy(not substantively). [...]
: Anton Sherwood wrote:
: > I didn't want to confuse Olav with courtesy titles. He is Lord
: > George substantively,
<ccz...@szn1.nott.ac.uk> writes
: He can't be "Lord George" substantively because "Lord George" isn't a
: substantive title (unless one tried to claim it is a barony which it
: obviously isn't). It is a courtesy title. Substantive titles and coutesy
: titles are mutually exclusive.
D'oh! I'll try again. If Kent had no subsidiary titles (rare for a
duke, but not unheard-of), his heir would be Lord George. As I see it,
that "fall-back" style is hidden under his actual style of Lord St.Andrews.
--
Anton Sherwood *\\* +1 415 267 0685 *\\* DASher @ netcom .com
"How'd ya like to climb this high WITHOUT no mountain?" --Porky Pine 70.6.19
New age dude
> D'oh! I'll try again. If Kent had no subsidiary titles (rare for a
> duke, but not unheard-of), his heir would be Lord George. As I see it,
> that "fall-back" style is hidden under his actual style of Lord St.Andrews.
A remark that I saw in Fox-Davies' "Complete Guide to Heraldry" regarding
this issue of non-existent junior titles in the case of a Duke/Marquis/Earl
was that the heir apparent could revert to the style Lord X (surname).
This applied to a practicle case :-e.g. supposing the Duke of Kent had no
other peerages his heir apparent could style himself 'Lord Windsor'.
The book I mentioned dates from 1909, so I don't know if this practice
still stands...
Greetings
Nuno A. G. Bandeira
Louis Epstein
Anton Sherwood (das...@netcom.com) wrote:
: : > Louis Epstein <l...@put.com> writes
: : > : He's not "Lord George Windsor" but "Earl of St. Andrews",the Duke's
: : > : second title which he bears by courtesy(not substantively). [...]
:
: : Anton Sherwood wrote:
: : > I didn't want to confuse Olav with courtesy titles. He is Lord
: : > George substantively,
:
: <ccz...@szn1.nott.ac.uk> writes
: : He can't be "Lord George" substantively because "Lord George" isn't a
: : substantive title (unless one tried to claim it is a barony which it
: : obviously isn't). It is a courtesy title. Substantive titles and coutesy
: : titles are mutually exclusive.
: D'oh! I'll try again. If Kent had no subsidiary titles (rare for a
: duke, but not unheard-of), his heir would be Lord George. As I see it,
: that "fall-back" style is hidden under his actual style of Lord St.Andrews.
What Duke has had no subsidiary titles?The lowest ranking style of a
Duke's heir apparent is Lord Seymour,son of the Duke of Somerset
(who of course takes precedence of all courtesy marquesses since his
father's title is older than any of theirs!)
Anton Sherwood
[Anton wrote]
: > D'oh! I'll try again. If Kent had no subsidiary titles (rare for a
: > that "fall-back" style is hidden under his actual style of Lord St.Andrews.
New age dude <l41...@alfa.ist.utl.pt> writes
: A remark that I saw in Fox-Davies' "Complete Guide to Heraldry" regarding
: this issue of non-existent junior titles in the case of a Duke/Marquis/Earl
: was that the heir apparent could revert to the style Lord X (surname).
: This applied to a practicle case :-e.g. supposing the Duke of Kent had no
: other peerages his heir apparent could style himself 'Lord Windsor'.
If Gloucester were in the same condition, there would be two Lords Windsor.
: The book I mentioned dates from 1909, so I don't know if this practice
: still stands...
Fox-Davies called it a recent practice of dubious authority, but
Heywood (1951) cites it in neutral terms:
It is opportune here to explain the custom of "inventing"
courtesy titles when occasion warrants. This arises when a
peer of a higher rank than viscount has no secondary title
which can be borne by his son, the minor titles having by the
accidents of descent become extinguished or alienated. Usually
the difficulty has been overcome by prefixing Viscount or Lord
to the family surname, where that is different from the title.
The position at the present time exists only in the Earldoms of
Devon, Huntingdon and Temple of Stowe. In the first case the
heir is known as Viscount or Lord Courtenay, in the second as
Viscount Hastings, and in the third as Lord Langton.
[*] (Louis, my memory must have been fooled by the imaginary illustration
in _The Art of Heraldry_. I didn't figure out for sure that it was
imaginary until I noticed, recently, that one of the peerages in the
Cilfowyr family is an Earldom of Edinburgh!)
Louis Epstein
Anton Sherwood (das...@netcom.com) wrote:
: [Anton wrote]
:
: New age dude <l41...@alfa.ist.utl.pt> writes
: : A remark that I saw in Fox-Davies' "Complete Guide to Heraldry" regarding
: : this issue of non-existent junior titles in the case of a Duke/Marquis/Earl
: : was that the heir apparent could revert to the style Lord X (surname).
: : This applied to a practicle case :-e.g. supposing the Duke of Kent had no
: : other peerages his heir apparent could style himself 'Lord Windsor'.
:
: If Gloucester were in the same condition, there would be two Lords Windsor.
:
: : The book I mentioned dates from 1909, so I don't know if this practice
: : still stands...
:
: Fox-Davies called it a recent practice of dubious authority, but
: Heywood (1951) cites it in neutral terms:
: It is opportune here to explain the custom of "inventing"
: courtesy titles when occasion warrants. This arises when a
: peer of a higher rank than viscount has no secondary title
: which can be borne by his son, the minor titles having by the
: accidents of descent become extinguished or alienated. Usually
: the difficulty has been overcome by prefixing Viscount or Lord
: to the family surname, where that is different from the title.
: The position at the present time exists only in the Earldoms of
: Devon, Huntingdon and Temple of Stowe. In the first case the
: heir is known as Viscount or Lord Courtenay, in the second as
: Viscount Hastings, and in the third as Lord Langton.
There is an additional case where the Earl of Guilford's only other
title is a barony of the same name...they use "Lord North",though that
now-abeyant barony passed out of the family a LONG time ago.