5 common ‘Royal title mistakes’ in the British media

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.’

Subscribe to our newsletter!

Posted in <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/princess/" rel="category tag">Princess</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/royal-title/" rel="category tag">Royal title</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/royal-titles/" rel="category tag">Royal titles</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/windsor/" rel="category tag">Windsor</a> Leave a comment

Is Kate a Princess?

Image: Surtsicna – This file was derived from Duchess of Cambridge, 16 June 2012.JPG:, CC BY-SA 3.0, 

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.

  1. 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…?).

  1. 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?

Posted in <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/duchess-of-cambridge/" rel="category tag">Duchess of Cambridge</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/princess/" rel="category tag">Princess</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/royal-titles/" rel="category tag">Royal titles</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/category/windsor/" rel="category tag">Windsor</a> Tagged <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/tag/duchess-of-cambridge/" rel="tag">Duchess of Cambridge</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/tag/iskateaprincess/" rel="tag">IsKateaPrincess?</a>, <a href="https://www.royalhistorygeeks.com/tag/iskatemiddletonaprincess/" rel="tag">IsKateMiddletonaPrincess?</a> 5 Comments