Re: HH vs HRH in Great Britain




cj.buyers@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> the_verminator@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > cj.buyers@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > Matt Lavengood wrote:
> > > > cj.buyers@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > > > Matt Lavengood wrote:
> > > > > > cj.buyers@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > > > > > Matt Lavengood wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The only person who lost his title of Prince of the UK was Prince
> > > > > > > > Alastair of Connaught, the son of TRH Prince and Princess Arthur of
> > > > > > > > Connaught. He, after the letters patent, became Earl of Macduff
> > > > > > > > afterwards.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If he actually had it, that is. As far as I know, nobody has been able
> > > > > > > to show any evidence that the title was used for him before 1917.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I have seen all sorts of arguments to say that he had a right to the
> > > > > > > title of "Prince of the UK of GB & Ireland" from birth. However, at
> > > > > > > best, it seems to me that one can only demonstrate a right for the
> > > > > > > titles of "Prince of Saxe Coburg-Gotha, and Duke of Saxony". Since
> > > > > > > neither the sovereign or his family seem to have addressed him as
> > > > > > > prince, the argument remains difficult to sustain.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've never heard that before.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Letters Patent under George I gave him the title of Prince with the
> > > > > > style of Highness.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have yet to see such Letters Patent, date and reference please?
> > > >
> > > > Hmm... you're right, I can't find any. However, there was already a
> > > > precedent, wasn't there? The children of Prince George, Duke of York
> > > > (later George V) were styled as Highness until granted the style of
> > > > Royal Highness.
> > >
> > > No, I don't think you correct there either.
> >
> > Check the Letterrs Patent issued May 27,1898- Matt is correct.
> >
> Then I am sure you wouldn't mind quoting any particular section of the
> 1898 LPs which even mentions the style of His of Her Highness, let
> alone who was entitled to that.


I found the following article on Wikipedia. I bet some of you have
already read that article, but I tought it might be relevant to quote
it here, since it pertains to our debate (the title is "British
prince", section "History"):

<<<Prior to 1714, the title of prince and the style of HRH was not in
common or customary usage. Sons and daughters of the sovereign were not
automatically or traditionally called a prince or princess. An
exception was the Prince of Wales, a title conferred on the eldest son
of the sovereign since the reign of Edward I of England. Some others
include John, brother of Richard the Lionheart and later John I of
England, who is sometimes called Prince John.

After the accession of King George I, it became customary for the sons
of the sovereign and grandsons of the sovereign in the male line to be
titled Prince and styled HRH. Great-grandsons of the sovereign were
princes styled HH. This was not a legal creation, but more customary,
and in line with George I's Hanoverian background. It also allowed
the creation as the royal family of those in immediate line of
succession to the throne, with royal titles and living in close
proximity.

The titles of prince and princess for members of the royal family were
used until Queen Victoria issued letters patent in 1864 which confirmed
the practice. Subsequently some amendments were made, with the issuance
of specific letters patent changing the title and style of the
following groups:

In 1898, the children of HRH Prince George, Duke of York, the eldest
living son of HRH The Prince of Wales, were titled princes, with the
style of HH, as great-grandchildren of Queen Victoria in the male line.
Letters patent allowed the children of the eldest son of the Prince of
Wales to be styled HRH.
In 1914, the children of Prince Ernst August III of Hanover, Duke of
Brunswick, a great-great-grandchild of George III, were granted the
title of prince and the style HH by George V.
In 1917, King George V issued a royal proclamation, altering the name
of the Royal House from the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to the House of
Windsor. A few months later in that year, new letters patent altered
the rights to the title prince and the style HRH. The letters patent
stated that "the children of any Sovereign of the United Kingdom and
the children of the sons of any such Sovereign (as per the Letters
Patent of 1864) and the eldest living son of the eldest son of the
Prince of Wales (a modification of the Letters Patent of 1898) shall
have and at all times hold and enjoy the style, title or attribute of
Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess
prefixed to their respective Christian names or with their other titles
of honour". The effect of this was that great-grandchildren of the
sovereign were no longer titled prince or princess, and were instead
styled as the children of a duke. Also the Duke of Brunswick and his
children were denied the title of prince. The 1917 letters patent
remain in force today, excepting a few amendments and creations noted.
After the abdication crisis in 1936, King George VI issued letters
patent denying the title of prince and style HRH to the wife and
descendants of HRH Prince Edward, Duke of Windsor. However, the
marriage had no issue.
In 1948 King George VI issued letters patent allowing the children of
his son-in-law and daughter, TRH The Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh, to
assume princely titles and the style HRH; they would not have been
entitled to them ordinarily, as grandchildren in the female line, until
their mother ascended the throne as Elizabeth II. Thus the current
Prince of Wales was styled HRH Prince Charles of Edinburgh until his
mother's accession.
Elizabeth II issued letters patent in 1956, creating HRH The Duke of
Edinburgh a Prince of the United Kingdom. He was granted the HRH style
in 1948 by George VI prior to his wedding to Princess Elizabeth.
Elizabeth II issued letters patent in 1997, denying the style of HRH to
former wives of divorced princes. Thus, HRH The Princess of Wales, wife
of HRH The Prince of Wales, was denied the style on her divorce and
became styled "Diana, Princess of Wales"; Sarah, Duchess of York, the
former wife of HRH The Prince Andrew, Duke of York, was similarly
affected because of her divorce from him.
Elizabeth II made known her decision in 1999 that the children of her
youngest son, HRH The Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex, would not have the
title prince/princess or the HRH style but instead use the titles of
the children of an earl. For reasons of her own, the Queen chose not to
issue letters patent in connection with this change but to have her
decision announced by her press secretary. Since the form used to
announce the royal will is entirely a matter for the sovereign, there
is no doubt that this determination is fully effective. >>>


Thus, it seems that the relevant letters patent are those of 1864, 1898
and, most of all, those of 1914, that, according to the text above,
specificaly granted HH titles to some groups.

I don´t have access either to the text of those Letters Patent, or to
the Gazette notice, but, unless the Wikipedia article made that up, it
is possible to find notice of the 1914 LP somewhere in the "London
Gazette Online".

Also, there was a page on the net that dealt specificaly with the
titular dignity of Prince in the UK, but I can´t find that site
anymore.

My quoting the article above is not an endorsement of its last
sentence, that I believe to be wrong. But isn´t relevant to the
present debate.

.