Author Topic: The status of Highness  (Read 12242 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline basilforever

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1409
    • View Profile
Re: The status of Highness
« Reply #30 on: March 29, 2007, 08:05:52 AM »
That's what I meant.
His Royal Highness Prince Albert Victor Christian Edward of Wales, Duke of Clarence and Avondale, Earl of Athlone, Knight of The Most Noble Order of the Garter, Knight of The Most Illustrious Order of St Patrick

Offline grandduchessella

  • Global Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 13061
  • Getting Ready to Move to Europe :D
    • View Profile
    • Facebook page
Re: The status of Highness
« Reply #31 on: March 29, 2007, 06:52:33 PM »
I don't blame George V for his decision. The British public had financial difficulties even before the war made them worse. The last thing a constitutional monarch wanted was the impression that they would be financing numerous Highnesses for their lifetimes. There had been grumbling even in Queen Victoria's day. At the time of the decision, George V had 6 children--including 5 sons--and all were unmarried. There was the possibility that those sons could marry and have numerous children themselves. As it worked out, 2 of his children were childless (Duke of Windsor and young John) and his other children produced just 9 grandchildren amongst them--7 in the male line. Even Tsar Alexander III, no progressive, had limited the rank and titles of Romanovs descendants decades before.

Here is a bit from The Times at the time of the decision:



The Duke of Fife can grumbled about it but it's really a moot point. His mother wasn't born a princess, she was made one and unmade on--in title if nothing else. If not for her great-grandmother, she wouldn't have even been born the daughter of a Duke, and the accompanying title of Lady, but rather the daughter of an Earl, with just the Hon. before her name.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2007, 07:15:18 PM by grandduchessella »
They also serve who only stand and wait--John Milton
Come visit on Pinterest--http://pinterest.com/lawrbk/

Offline basilforever

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1409
    • View Profile
Re: The status of Highness
« Reply #32 on: March 30, 2007, 03:29:43 AM »
I have to say I disagree. I agree with some of George V's actions on these matters, but not all of them. I particularly disagree with depriving people of titles they already had been given by previous monarchs. I just think if that happened to me, I would be very mad. Were the Fife  Princesses even financed by the taxpayers? I don't think so. I think grumbling like this can often be successfully ignored by the Royals as things continue okay. Well the Romanovs had a far more extravagant system where it went Grand Duke on and on as long as it wasn't morganatic, so that was in more of a need of change and limiting than the British system I think. But as I said some of George V's changes were not a bad idea.

As for the Duke of Fife grumbling - I don't think  it is really a moot point, as his mothe was made a Princess, and from what I understand she wasn't unmade one by Royal Warrent, yes? So that means she still is a Princess, and he is entitled to think himself the son of a Princess and an Earl.

Even if she was not the granddaughter of the Princess Royal and was just the daughter of the Earl and Countess of Fife, she (H.H. Princess Maud, Countess of Southesk) would still have the title of Lady, as the daughters of Earls have that too!
His Royal Highness Prince Albert Victor Christian Edward of Wales, Duke of Clarence and Avondale, Earl of Athlone, Knight of The Most Noble Order of the Garter, Knight of The Most Illustrious Order of St Patrick

Naslednik Norvezhskiy

  • Guest
Re: The status of Highness
« Reply #33 on: March 20, 2010, 03:34:44 AM »
The Duke of Fife can grumbled about it but it's really a moot point. His mother wasn't born a princess, she was made one and unmade on--in title if nothing else. If not for her great-grandmother, she wouldn't have even been born the daughter of a Duke, and the accompanying title of Lady, but rather the daughter of an Earl, with just the Hon. before her name.
English really has a most amazingly practical designation in the (courtesy) titles of Lord and Lady, but the lower courtesy title in the peerage, The Honourable, really makes me think me think of some honourable farmer, compared to for example the Continental and Russian noble styles Highbornness and Wellbornness.

But, back to the topic of HH:
Have we also seen the last of the coronet cooked up for Highnesses in 1911 (alternating fleurs-de-lys and strawberry leaves or trefoils, just like the coronet of a French Prince of the Blood), or do the grandchildren of the Sovereign in the female line, for example Margaret's and Anne's children, still sport it, as they are entitled to according to letters patent of 1917?
See Heraldica: Styles of the Members of the Royal Family of Great Britain for illustration and details.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2010, 04:05:42 AM by Fyodor Petrovich »

Offline Kalafrana

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2912
    • View Profile
Re: The status of Highness
« Reply #34 on: March 20, 2010, 06:57:08 AM »
I've come into this thread rather late but  can't resist adding my two-penn'orth.

As I read the position before 1917, the titles HH and Prince/Princess could go on ad infinitum. Ernst August, Duke of Brunswick (1887-1953), a great-great-grandson of George III, was treated as a Prince of Great Britain and Ireland in the consent under the Royal Marriages Act in 1913 and again in connection with the Titles Deprivation Act 1917. His eldest son, born in March 1914, was also officially declared to be a Prince of Great Britain and Ireland and an HH. Alasdair of Connaught is an anomaly. In my view he was HH Prince alasdair of Connaught from birth and remained so after 1917, as the Royal Warrant stated that it did not affect persons already living. There is some correspondence between Louis of Battenberg and the then Garter King of Arms, Sir Alfred Scott-Gatty, in 1915-16, discussing his position, but nobody actually got round to doing anything about him and he finished up simply as Earl of Macduff by courtesy.

I did publish an article on royal titles in an academic journal published electronically some time ago and I will post the link when I find it.

Ann

Naslednik Norvezhskiy

  • Guest
Re: The status of Highness
« Reply #35 on: March 20, 2010, 07:07:03 AM »
Have we also seen the last of the coronet cooked up for Highnesses in 1911 (alternating fleurs-de-lys and strawberry leaves or trefoils, just like the coronet of a French Prince of the Blood), or do the grandchildren of the Sovereign in the female line, for example Margaret's and Anne's children, still sport it, as they are entitled to according to letters patent of 1917?
See Heraldica: Styles of the Members of the Royal Family of Great Britain for illustration and details.
Of course it would be wonderfully absurd if plain Ms. Zara Philips, MBE, and Mr. Peter Philips, Esq., sported coronets!

Offline Margot

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 360
    • View Profile
Re: The status of Highness
« Reply #36 on: March 20, 2010, 07:59:53 AM »
The issue of Alastair was never firmly satisfied because the affirmed limitations of the HRH status and consequent obsolescence of the HH status were limited to the children and grandchildren of George V and affected those 'to come' in the male line thereafter! It seems that Alastair's proper title and rightful precedence were simply dropped to create uniformity and neatness....but he was still really an Highness and a Prince until the day he died as no provision of deprivation was ever passed specifically including him within a remit exclusion! His position was really akin to the present position of Lady Louise Windsor and James Viscount Severn! In as much as they are not known by their 'rightful' titles in a similar way as Alastair wasn't. Unless a Royal warrant is issued depriving them of their royal titles, the Wessex children remain Royal Highnesses and are in reality HRH Princess Louise of Wessex and HRH Prince James of Wessex as Alastair was in reality always HH Prince Alastair of Connaught and later HH the Duke of Connaught and Strathearn aka Alastair Earl of Macduff and later His Grace the Duke of Connaught and Strathearn.

What I do find so hypocritical and rather 'janus like' about George V's actions in 1917 was that he had rather blatantly massaged egos in Germany in 1914 when he agreed that the children of Victoria Louise and Ernest August of Hanover would have the style of Highness and Prince or Princess of Great Britain and Ireland! In itself I have no problem with George V's acquiescence in this but his apparent dislike of having a plethora of Highnesses in the family and later encouragement of the limitation of the title to such extent where Maud of Southesk stopped using hers, leaves a rather unpleasant whiff of hypocrisy in the air! I do realize that from 1917 onwards the Hanover family were officially deprived of their English Royal titles as well as peerages! I suspect George V allowed the 1914 Warrant to pass in order to curry and encourage good familial relations with the Kaiser....which still leaves me thinking George was an absolute hypocrite in what came to pass later....especially where Alastair was concerned, who was far more worthy of being a British Prince than any of the Hanover lot born from 1914 anyway!

With regards to the female line grandchildren of the sovereign coronet  I am sure I read an article ages ago that suggested that there is only one recorded example of such a coronet actually being worn and that was by Irene Carisbrooke I believe! I understand that neither Helena Victoria or Marie Louise took advantage of the ruling and neither wore coronets in 1937 nor did the latter in 1953 and Princess Arthur Connaught got to wear a proper grandchild's coronet in lieu of her status as Arthur's wife in '37 anyway, which only left the Maud Southesk, Alexander Carisbrooke and Irene, George Harewood and his brother Gerald Lascelles. I believe the present Earl of Harewood and Alexander Carisbooke used Earl's and Marquess' coronets respectively in  '37 and '53 where applicable, and Gerald did not assert his right to a coronet as a female line descended grandchild of a sovereign at all and Maud Southesk was still only Viscountess Carnegie in 1937 so did not have the right to wear a peeress' coronet at that time! As Patsy Connaught wore her Princess of the Blood coronet to the coronations of '37 and '53 even though she no longer used the title I do wonder whether the unique coronet purportedly worn by Irene Carisbrooke may have been made for Maud Southesk originally for the 37 coronation!  

 
« Last Edit: March 20, 2010, 08:30:20 AM by Margot »

Offline Marlene

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2467
  • I live and breath QVD
    • View Profile
    • Royal Musings
Re: The status of Highness
« Reply #37 on: March 20, 2010, 10:45:59 AM »

Anne would have been The Lady Anne Mountbatten, not Windsor, as Mountbatten was her father's surname
So only the grandchildren of the Prince of Wales is a Highness?  If Princess Anne, Princess Royal was the Queen's and Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh's only child as heiress presumtive what would her grandchildren be titled?  She wouldn't have been "Prince of Wales" so would they be: Lord/Lady ________?  Is this right? 

The way it works is - the Queen's (or King's) children and male line grandchildren are all HRH, and so is the eldest living son of the eldest living son of the Prince of Wales - so Prince William's first son will be HRH. If Anne was the Queen's heiress, her children would probably be made HRH by letters patent - this is what happened when the Queen (then Princess Elizabeth) was George VI's heir. Her children, Charles and Anne, were made HRH. If they hadn't been, they would've been titled Earl of Merioneth (Philip's subsidiary title) and 'Lady Anne Windsor'.
Author of Queen Victoria's Descendants,
& publisher of Royal Book News.
Visit my blog, Royal Musings  http://royalmusingsblogspotcom.blogspot.com/

Offline Marlene

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2467
  • I live and breath QVD
    • View Profile
    • Royal Musings
Re: The status of Highness
« Reply #38 on: March 20, 2010, 10:47:33 AM »
Princess Maud ceased to be styled as Princess when she married Lord Southesk .. her decision which pleased George V who had not agreed with his father's decision to elevate the Duff girls. 
I have to say I disagree. I agree with some of George V's actions on these matters, but not all of them. I particularly disagree with depriving people of titles they already had been given by previous monarchs. I just think if that happened to me, I would be very mad. Were the Fife  Princesses even financed by the taxpayers? I don't think so. I think grumbling like this can often be successfully ignored by the Royals as things continue okay. Well the Romanovs had a far more extravagant system where it went Grand Duke on and on as long as it wasn't morganatic, so that was in more of a need of change and limiting than the British system I think. But as I said some of George V's changes were not a bad idea.

As for the Duke of Fife grumbling - I don't think  it is really a moot point, as his mothe was made a Princess, and from what I understand she wasn't unmade one by Royal Warrent, yes? So that means she still is a Princess, and he is entitled to think himself the son of a Princess and an Earl.

Even if she was not the granddaughter of the Princess Royal and was just the daughter of the Earl and Countess of Fife, she (H.H. Princess Maud, Countess of Southesk) would still have the title of Lady, as the daughters of Earls have that too!
Author of Queen Victoria's Descendants,
& publisher of Royal Book News.
Visit my blog, Royal Musings  http://royalmusingsblogspotcom.blogspot.com/

Offline Paul

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 225
  • born a century too late
    • View Profile
Re: The status of Highness
« Reply #39 on: March 20, 2010, 03:05:14 PM »
That is the case. I think George V was acting in their best interest with the title change, although he was trying to preserve the dynasty, by making it more British, less German. They knew they had their part to play, whatever their personal feelings, which tended to be a bit more complicated than happiness at times. ;) I don't think they would have wanted to be in Germany had they had the option to keep their titles and do that. That would have been their only option in most cases, although perhaps not in those of the more extended ( i.e. obscure) family. I think they were happier in England, of course, maybe some would have chosen differently, but I think their unhappiness about this in comparison to the other choice, would have been little. I am sure they wished they could keep their titles and remain in England at times, but.. still, it is an interesting question that goes beyond titles to the way it was in England and America at the time.

A question about using titles socially.

When visiting Germany after the war, did any of the demoted princes revert to using their old Teck or Battenberg titles? I'm thinking in terms of signing into hotels or visiting German relatives?
The only real possession you'll ever have is your character.
Tom Wolfe
US author & journalist (1931 - )

Offline Marlene

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2467
  • I live and breath QVD
    • View Profile
    • Royal Musings
Re: The status of Highness
« Reply #40 on: March 20, 2010, 03:41:48 PM »
There were probably many visit to Germany after the first world, certainly in the first few years -- the British titles were certainly more prestigious and gave them a real rank when in Germany.The Mountbattens of course kept in touch  - and a reconnection was made when Cecile married Georg Hesse ... and Patricia and Pamela visited Wolfsgarten several times .. and were included in the kid measurements in the nursery.
Author of Queen Victoria's Descendants,
& publisher of Royal Book News.
Visit my blog, Royal Musings  http://royalmusingsblogspotcom.blogspot.com/