Will Catherine be Queen?

**Pleater** · 21st November 12, 09:17 AM

Lieutenant Philip Mountbatten married Princess Elizabeth, having renounced his titles as Prince of Greece and of Denmark, having converted to the Anglican church from the Greek Orthodox, and become a naturalised citizen of Britain and taken the surname of Mountbatten, that of his maternal grandparents.

When he married he was granted 'the style' HRH, and was given the title of Duke of Edinburgh, but there was a gap in his being a Royal Highness which was just a little longer than the period of his engagement.

At least that is what Wikipaedia says, and I am fairly sure that is what happened.

Anne the Pleater :ootd:

**creagdhubh** · 21st November 12, 09:26 AM

Originally Posted by BCAC

Jeez, I MUST be getting old! What on earth does +*** mean?

It basically means a member of the rabble really (hence the double +) agrees, or likes another member's comment/contribution/response to a particular thread/topic. Apparently, I am notorious for giving "***'s."

Cheers,

**JohntheBiker** · 21st November 12, 12:42 PM

Originally Posted by McFarkus

Phillip was already a Prince of Greece when he married Elizabeth and thus was entitled to HRH in his own right. He was given the title of Duke of Edinburgh (one of the Royal dukedoms) upon marriage. The title of Prince of the UK was an additional honor.

I think that you will find that he had relinquished his Greek/Danish title before he married Elizabeth and was not entitled to styled Prince or his HRH. The King granted him the title of HRH, but not Prince.

**Phil** · 21st November 12, 03:12 PM

Just think – if there hadn’t been that little bit of difficulty back in 1775 all of this speculation could have been of some significance to our American compatriots. As it is I wonder why there should be such fascination about these individuals? Perhaps it is time for a groundswell of opinion in your country for a restoration of the monarchy and a return to the fold. After all what rational being would really want any old Tom, Dick or Harry being elected as the Head of State?
Just think of the advantages. No more Presidential elections every four years with all the hassle and expense that entails. And worthy figures like Donald Trump could become courtiers and nobles with titles, ermine robes and all the flummery that goes with that. No more worries about having to aspire to be the President any more. All that would be solved and everyone could be happy becoming subjects of a hereditary sovereign instead of that pesky citizen nonsense. And, of course, there would no longer be any need for a Constitution. Not with a monarch who rules with absolute authority. I mean how could anyone want anything else?
But I forget, of course. Some people in 1775 actually wanted something different – and they did something about it.

**O'Callaghan** · 21st November 12, 04:35 PM

All I have to add is that identifying a woman by her husband's first name is so thoroughly passe that the British press and public won't go along with that particular rule, no matter what protocol might have to say, with the possible exception of Princess Michael(???) of Kent. Ergo, we had Princess Di and now have Princess Kate. To identify them otherwise might make sense to Debrett's, perhaps, but is, in any case, rather sexist.

**be da veva** · 21st November 12, 05:16 PM

Originally Posted by creagdhubh

Apparently, I am notorious for giving "***'s." Cheers,

***

**auld argonian** · 21st November 12, 06:56 PM

Originally Posted by Phil

But I forget, of course. Some people in 1775 actually wanted something different – and they did something about it.

Well, the way I heard it, it wasn't as if the colonials woke up one morning and said, "Gee...wouldn't it be cool if we didn't have a king?".

Be that as it may, I have to say that I find it sort of funny when some of my countrymen can go on chapter and verse about the ins and outs of the UK's lines of succession. Most of my countrymen would be hard pressed to tell you what congressional district they're in and give the names of their state and federal representatives. It's a funny old world, isn't it?

But if I was a UK citizen, I think that I'd have to be a little flattered that these sons of the sons of the sons of the sons of Liberty seem to care about the status of the Monarchy...two nations divided by a common language, eh?

Best

AA

**O'Callaghan** · 21st November 12, 10:20 PM

Originally Posted by auld argonian

Well, the way I heard it, it wasn't as if the colonials woke up one morning and said, "Gee...wouldn't it be cool if we didn't have a king?".

Be that as it may, I have to say that I find it sort of funny when some of my countrymen can go on chapter and verse about the ins and outs of the UK's lines of succession. Most of my countrymen would be hard pressed to tell you what congressional district they're in and give the names of their state and federal representatives. It's a funny old world, isn't it?

But if I was a UK citizen, I think that I'd have to be a little flattered that these sons of the sons of the sons of the sons of Liberty seem to care about the status of the Monarchy...two nations divided by a common language, eh?

Best

AA

It amuses us.

Actually, most of the former British colonies are members of the British Commonwealth, which, amongst other things, means that although they are independent the Queen is still their head of state. Maybe you could apply for membership? It's never too late! Your athletes would get to compete in the Commonwealth Games, which some other countries might think would be unfair on them.

The British Commonwealth didn't exist at the time you seceded, of course. I think only one country has ever voluntarily quit, and it was Ireland (some even say that was accidental, LOL!). I think at least one country may have been expelled?

People have been talking about whether an independent Scotland would be a member of the EU, but no-one seems to be asking if they would be a member of the Commonwealth?

**Downunder Kilt** · 21st November 12, 10:36 PM

Originally Posted by Phil

And, of course, there would no longer be any need for a Constitution. Not with a monarch who rules with absolute authority. I mean how could anyone want anything else?

Australia has Her Majesty The Queen as monarch and has a constitution, as does Canada. The United Kingdom has a form of constitution but not as a single document. The description of the of the current Royal system in the UK is as being a Constitutional monarchy.

**MacMillan of Rathdown** · 21st November 12, 11:50 PM

I think some have rather misunderstood how "titles" work, which is the same for nobles and non-nobles alike. For instance:

Miss Sally Smith marries Mister John Hartwell; she is lawfully styled as "Sally Smith, Mrs. John Hartwell". When Mr. Hartwell dies, she becomes "Mrs. Sally Hartwell", by which style her status as a widow is made known. The same is true for Princess Michael of Kent.

When Baroness Marie Christine von Reibnitz married Prince Michael Windsor of Kent, she assumed his style (prince/princess) and became "Marie Christine, Princess Michael (Windsor) of Kent". Should her husband pre-decease her, she would continue to be "Princess Michael of Kent" as the title "Prince" or "Princess" will not be transmitted to her children, although they will inherit the family name "Windsor" and a differenced version of the Windsor family arms.

Titles, including Mister and Misses, are gender specific because people are gender specific;
titles reveal everything from age to ownership of transmissible property, and far from being sexist are an index of the societal status of a name, nothing more, nothing less.