Prince of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Subject: Prince of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Date: 9/17/2004 2:07 PM Eastern Standard Time
Hello.
I'm sorry for posting questions one after another.
I often see the website styling the children of QEII 'Prince of Great
Britain and Ireland.'
Is it not proper to style them '... of the United Kingdom...'?

*HM's formal title in the UK, which is only used on the most formal occasions,
is:

"Elizabeth The Second by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen,
Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith".

In 1957, the Queen granted the Duke of Edinburth the style and dignity of a
Prince of the United Kingdom.

Don Aitken

2004-09-17 21:16:19 UTC

Post by wythno
Hello.
I'm sorry for posting questions one after another.
I often see the website styling the children of QEII 'Prince of Great
Britain and Ireland.'
Is it not proper to style them '... of the United Kingdom...'?
Is it just a toleratative expression?
If there is a kind of LP or Proclamation stating so, I would like to
have the detail (punlished year etc; URI if etext of which available).
I also guess the case of HRH The Duke of Edinbrugh, who was clearly
created a 'Prince of the UK...'

The full title is "Prince of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland". It is normally abbreviated; "Prince of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland" and "Prince of the United Kingdom" are
both acceptable. "Great Britain and Ireland" went out of use in the
1920s, except for the Hanoverians.

--
Don Aitken

Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".

David Eades

2004-09-22 16:54:08 UTC

I'm a bit late, but, no, I don't think as early as the 1920s, after
all the king's title remained "of Ireland" even after the
establishment of the Irish Free State. George V was King of Ireland,
as were Edward VIII and George VI. There was a change in the monarch's
titles carried out in the reign of George V to take account of the
setting up of the IFS, so that he was styled King of Great Britain and
Ireland, and not, as previously, King of the United Kingdom of GB and
Irl.

There is also evidence that Queen Elizabeth II began her reign using
"of Ireland" in her title, and that it was only later, before the
coronation, that the monarch's title was altered to take account of
the departure of the greater part of Ireland from the dominions of the
Crown.

So if the sovereign was using the style "of Ireland" as late as 1952
it's very likely that the princes and princesses of the royal family
were doing the same.

Regards,
David Eades

Don Aitken

2004-09-22 19:44:04 UTC

I'm a bit late, but, no, I don't think as early as the 1920s, after
all the king's title remained "of Ireland" even after the
establishment of the Irish Free State. George V was King of Ireland,
as were Edward VIII and George VI. There was a change in the monarch's
titles carried out in the reign of George V to take account of the
setting up of the IFS, so that he was styled King of Great Britain and
Ireland, and not, as previously, King of the United Kingdom of GB and
Irl.
There is also evidence that Queen Elizabeth II began her reign using
"of Ireland" in her title, and that it was only later, before the
coronation, that the monarch's title was altered to take account of
the departure of the greater part of Ireland from the dominions of the
Crown.
So if the sovereign was using the style "of Ireland" as late as 1952
it's very likely that the princes and princesses of the royal family
were doing the same.

Interesting point. The Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927
specifies that "United Kingdom" means "Great Britain and Northern
Ireland". But, of course, the royal title did not use the term "United
Kingdom" until 1953. The styles used at various dates are on François
Velde's site at http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/britstyles.htm
One might expect the titles of Princes and Princesses would use the
same formula. I don't recall anyone being described as "Prince of
Great Baritain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas",
though.

--
Don Aitken

Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".

David Eades

2004-09-23 14:55:35 UTC

I'm a bit late, but, no, I don't think as early as the 1920s, after
all the king's title remained "of Ireland" even after the
establishment of the Irish Free State. George V was King of Ireland,
as were Edward VIII and George VI. There was a change in the monarch's
titles carried out in the reign of George V to take account of the
setting up of the IFS, so that he was styled King of Great Britain and
Ireland, and not, as previously, King of the United Kingdom of GB and
Irl.
There is also evidence that Queen Elizabeth II began her reign using
"of Ireland" in her title, and that it was only later, before the
coronation, that the monarch's title was altered to take account of
the departure of the greater part of Ireland from the dominions of the
Crown.
So if the sovereign was using the style "of Ireland" as late as 1952
it's very likely that the princes and princesses of the royal family
were doing the same.

I have never come across that either, but then, as far as I know, the
princes and princesses of the British royal house have never used such
styles as "of Canada/Australia/ Jamaica" etc.I wonder if a member of
the royal family, eg Prince Michael of Kent, could, while on a visit
to, lets say, Papua-New Guinea call himself prince of Papua-New
Guinea. Or if it would be possible for Princess Alexandra to refer to
herself as princess of Belize while on a visit to that country.

Regards,
David Eades

Christopher Buyers

2004-09-24 06:20:50 UTC

I'm a bit late, but, no, I don't think as early as the 1920s, after
all the king's title remained "of Ireland" even after the
establishment of the Irish Free State. George V was King of Ireland,
as were Edward VIII and George VI. There was a change in the monarch's
titles carried out in the reign of George V to take account of the
setting up of the IFS, so that he was styled King of Great Britain and
Ireland, and not, as previously, King of the United Kingdom of GB and
Irl.
There is also evidence that Queen Elizabeth II began her reign using
"of Ireland" in her title, and that it was only later, before the
coronation, that the monarch's title was altered to take account of
the departure of the greater part of Ireland from the dominions of the
Crown.
So if the sovereign was using the style "of Ireland" as late as 1952
it's very likely that the princes and princesses of the royal family
were doing the same.

For that matter, are there any examples of the title Prince/Princess
"of Great Britain and Ireland" or "of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland" being used officially within the UK for
anyone apart from Prince Philip and the Brunswicks?

Francois R. Velde

2004-09-27 04:11:26 UTC

This post might be inappropriate. Click to display it.

Christopher Buyers

2004-09-27 14:03:53 UTC

Post by Francois R. Velde

Post by Christopher Buyers
or that matter, are there any examples of the title Prince/Princess
"of Great Britain and Ireland" or "of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland" being used officially within the UK for
anyone apart from Prince Philip and the Brunswicks?

See the letters patent creating George V's eldest son as prince of Wales, which,
given their diplomatic interest, I transcribe in full from an article in the
Times (July 5, 1911, page 8 col. c).
"George the Fifth, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, King, Defender of the
Faith.
To all Archbishops, Dukes, Marquesses, Earls, Viscounts, Bishops, Barons,
Baronets, Knights, Justices, Provosts, Ministers, and all other Our Faithful
Subjects, greeting.
Know ye that We have made and created and by these Our Letters Patent do make
and create Our Most Dear Son, Edward Albert Christian George Andrew Patrick
David, Prince of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Duke of
Cornwall and Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles, and
Grand Steward of Scotland, Duke of Saxony and Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha,
Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester, and to the same, Our Most Dear Son Edward
Albert Christian George Andrew Patrick David, have given and granted. And by
this our present Charter do give, grant, and confirm the name, style, title,
dignity and honour of the same Principality and Earldom, and Him Our said Most
Dear Son Edward Albert Christian George Andrew Patrick David as has been
accustomed We do ennoble and invest with the said Principality and Earldom by
girding Him with a sword, by putting a coronet on His head, and a gold ring on
his finger, and also by delivery a gold rod into his hand, that he may preside
there and may direct and defend those parts to hold to him and his heirs Kings
of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions
beyond the Seas for ever.
Wherefore We will and strictly command for Us, our heirs and successors, that
Our said most dear son, Edward Albert Christian George Andrew Patrick David may
have the name, style, title, dignity, and honour of the Principality of Wales
and Earldom of Chester aforesaid unto him and his heirs Kings of the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the
Seas as is above mentioned.
In witness whereof We have caused these Our Letters to be made Patent.
Witness Ourself at Westminster the 23rd of June in the first year of Our reign."
See also the consent given by the king to the marriage of princess Alexandra of
Cumberland, daughter of HRH the duke of Cumberland (Times, Mar 8, 1904, page 6
"At the Court at Buckingham Palace, the 7th day of March, 1904.
Present.
The king's Most Excellent Majesty in Council.
His Majesty was this day pleased to declare His consent to a contract of
matrimony between Her Royal Highness Princess Alexandra Louise Maria Olga
Elisabeth Thérèse Wera, born Princess of Great Britain and Ireland, Duchess of
Brunswick and Luneburg, daughter of His Royal Highness the Duke of Cumberland,
and His Royal Highness Prince Friedrich Franz IV., Grand Duke of
Mecklenburg-Schwerin, which consent His Majesty caused to be signified under the
Great Seal and to be entered in the Books of the Privy Council."
A daughter of Queen Victoria signed her name "Helena, Princess Christian of
Schleswig-Holstein, Princess of Great Britain and Ireland" (see her letter to
the editor, as president of the Royal School of Art Needlework, in the Times of
Feb 13, 1894).
The London Gazette supplement of Dec. 19, 1919 carries mention of "Sec. Lt.
H.R.H. H. W. F. A. Prince of Great Britain and Ireland" in the King's Royal
Rifle Corps. This, I believe, is a reference to the future duke of Gloucester.
On the anecdotal side, there is the occupation of the current PoW as listed in
his marriage register and on the birth certificate of his son: "prince of the
United Kingdom".

Thanks.

I should have added "after the 1917 LP, in my original question".

Francois R. Velde

2004-09-27 15:49:09 UTC

Post by Francois R. Velde
The London Gazette supplement of Dec. 19, 1919 carries mention of "Sec. Lt.
H.R.H. H. W. F. A. Prince of Great Britain and Ireland" in the King's Royal
Rifle Corps. This, I believe, is a reference to the future duke of Gloucester.

I should have added "after the 1917 LP, in my original question".

See above example, which can be found in the London Gazette 31699, p. 4. Two further
examples, for the same individual:

"Cavalry. 10th H.
2nd Lt. HRH Henry William Frederick Albert, Prince of Great Britain and Ireland, from
KKRC to be 2nd Lt., 22nd June 1921, with seniority from 16th July 1919, next below 2nd
Lt. HRH Kennard."
(London Gazette 32365, 21 June 1921, p. 6)

"Cavalry. 10th H.
The undermentioned to be Lts. 16th July 1921: [...]
2nd Lt. HRH Henry W. F. A., Prince of Great Britain and Ireland, KG."
(London Gazette 32392, 15 July 1921, p. 2).

A letter sent by the duke of Connaught to the German Order of St John in
May 1918 to protest the sinking of hospital ships begins: "We, Arthur, Duke
of Connaught and Strathearn, Prince of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Ireland, Grand Prior of the Order of St. Hohn of Jerusalem in England..."
(Times 31 May 1918, p. 5b)

I'm not sure why one would expect the text of the 1958 LP creating the PoW to be
different from the 1911 LP; but I can't find it (the London Gazette only mentions
the 1958 LP, but does not give the full text).

--
François R. Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldica Web Site: http://www.heraldica.org/

Christopher Buyers

2004-09-28 05:08:28 UTC

Post by Francois R. Velde

I should have added "after the 1917 LP, in my original question".

See above example, which can be found in the London Gazette 31699, p. 4. Two further
"Cavalry. 10th H.
2nd Lt. HRH Henry William Frederick Albert, Prince of Great Britain and Ireland, from
KKRC to be 2nd Lt., 22nd June 1921, with seniority from 16th July 1919, next below 2nd
Lt. HRH Kennard."
(London Gazette 32365, 21 June 1921, p. 6)
"Cavalry. 10th H.
The undermentioned to be Lts. 16th July 1921: [...]
2nd Lt. HRH Henry W. F. A., Prince of Great Britain and Ireland, KG."
(London Gazette 32392, 15 July 1921, p. 2).
A letter sent by the duke of Connaught to the German Order of St John in
May 1918 to protest the sinking of hospital ships begins: "We, Arthur, Duke
of Connaught and Strathearn, Prince of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Ireland, Grand Prior of the Order of St. Hohn of Jerusalem in England..."
(Times 31 May 1918, p. 5b)
I'm not sure why one would expect the text of the 1958 LP creating the PoW to be
different from the 1911 LP; but I can't find it (the London Gazette only mentions
the 1958 LP, but does not give the full text).

I am not sure either, because I was talking about 1917, where the LP
governing the title of prince or princess does not assign any
territorial designation. So the question is whether or not the
territorial designation of princes and princesses of the UK follows
the Royal Titles of the sovereign, or can anything be inferred from
other official sources.

From the post 1917 examples found so far, we have the following
possibilities:
Prince of Great Britian and Ireland (Gloucester 1919)
Prince of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (Connaught
1918)
Prince of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
(Edinburgh 1957)
Prince of the United Kingdom (Prince Charles Wedding Register)

Cheers

Gidzmo

2004-09-28 18:14:33 UTC

See the letters patent creating George V's eldest son as Prince of Wales,

which,
given their diplomatic interest, I transcribe in full from an article in the
Times (July 5, 1911, page 8, col. c).

by these Our Letters Patent do make and create Our Most Dear Son Edward Albert

Christian George Andrew Patrick David, Prince of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Ireland, Duke of Cornwall and Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Baron of
Renfrew, Lord of the Isles, and
Grand Steward of Scotland, Duke of Saxony and Prince of Saxe-Coburg and
Gotha, Prince of Wales and Earl of
Chester

I notice that the LP is dated 5 July 1911, so this would have been before the
1917 LPs (the ones that changed the family name and did away with the German
titles).

So, after 1917, the future Edward VIII would have been known as:
Prince of the UK of Great Britain/Ireland
Duke of Cornwall and Rothesay
Baron of Renfrew
Lord of the Isles
Grand Steward of Scotland
Prince of Wales
Earl of Chester

Frank R.A.J. Maloney

2004-09-28 18:35:45 UTC

Post by Francois R. Velde

See the letters patent creating George V's eldest son as Prince of Wales,

which,
given their diplomatic interest, I transcribe in full from an article in the
Times (July 5, 1911, page 8, col. c).

by these Our Letters Patent do make and create Our Most Dear Son Edward Albert

Christian George Andrew Patrick David, Prince of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Ireland, Duke of Cornwall and Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Baron of
Renfrew, Lord of the Isles, and
Grand Steward of Scotland, Duke of Saxony and Prince of Saxe-Coburg and
Gotha, Prince of Wales and Earl of
Chester
I notice that the LP is dated 5 July 1911, so this would have been before the
1917 LPs (the ones that changed the family name and did away with the German
titles).
Prince of the UK of Great Britain/Ireland
Duke of Cornwall and Rothesay
Baron of Renfrew
Lord of the Isles
Grand Steward of Scotland
Prince of Wales
Earl of Chester

Just as a side issue is "Baron of Renfrew" actually the correct title? I
would have thought, and in fact did think that it was "Baron Renfrew".

--
Frank in Seattle

___________

Frank Richard Aloysius Jude Maloney

"I leave you now in radiant contentment"
-- "Whistling in the Dark"

Don Aitken

2004-09-28 21:48:26 UTC

Post by Frank R.A.J. Maloney

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 11:35:45 -0700, "Frank R.A.J. Maloney"

Post by Gidzmo
Prince of the UK of Great Britain/Ireland
Duke of Cornwall and Rothesay
Baron of Renfrew
Lord of the Isles
Grand Steward of Scotland
Prince of Wales
Earl of Chester

Just as a side issue is "Baron of Renfrew" actually the correct title? I
would have thought, and in fact did think that it was "Baron Renfrew".

I believe it is correct. It is not a peerage title, since there is no
such rank in the peerage of Scotland, but something sui generis.

--
Don Aitken

Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".

Stan Brown

2004-09-30 02:55:21 UTC

Post by Frank R.A.J. Maloney
Just as a side issue is "Baron of Renfrew" actually the correct title? I
would have thought, and in fact did think that it was "Baron Renfrew".

I thought so too, but the FAQ also says "Baron of Renfrew".

<http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page415.asp>, for what it's worth,
says "Baron Renfrew".

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Royalty FAQs:
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Yvonne's HRH page: http://users.uniserve.com/~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm

Peter Tilman

2004-09-29 06:36:25 UTC

Post by Gidzmo
Prince of the UK of Great Britain/Ireland
Duke of Cornwall and Rothesay
Baron of Renfrew
Lord of the Isles
Grand Steward of Scotland
Prince of Wales
Earl of Chester

You missed out "Earl of Carrick".

Gidzmo

2004-09-29 22:36:30 UTC

Post by Peter Tilman
You missed out "Earl of Carrick".

I looked back at my earlier post--you're right!

And someone was asking about the Renfrew title; I was thinking the same thing:
that it was "Baron Renfrew," not "Baron OF Renfrew."

So then,...

Post by Peter Tilman

Post by Gidzmo
Prince of the UK of Great Britain/Ireland
Duke of Cornwall and Rothesay
Baron Renfrew
Lord of the Isles
Grand Steward of Scotland
Prince of Wales
Earl of Chester

and Earl of Carrick.

Peter Tilman

2004-09-30 08:57:24 UTC

Post by Gidzmo
that it was "Baron Renfrew," not "Baron OF Renfrew."

No, it's a Scottish feudal title, and so the "of" is correct. (If it were a
Scottish peerage, it would be "Lord Renfrew".)

Rico

2004-09-24 12:19:42 UTC

"David Eades" <***@infonie.fr> wrote in message

<snipped>

Post by Don Aitken
Interesting point. The Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927
specifies that "United Kingdom" means "Great Britain and Northern
Ireland". But, of course, the royal title did not use the term "United
Kingdom" until 1953. The styles used at various dates are on François
Velde's site at http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/britstyles.htm
One might expect the titles of Princes and Princesses would use the
same formula. I don't recall anyone being described as "Prince of
Great Baritain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas",
though.

Other than those persons born or married into other royal, princely or noble
families from other countries, the only members of British royalty and
nobility who have country specific titles outside the UK are The monarch and
the person who holds the earldom of Burma.

The Queen is alway 'of Australia' when in Australia (or representing us), of
Canada when in or representing Canada, of New Zealand etc. She is also, by
agreement of the Chiefs of Fiji, still Cheif of all Cheifs of Fiji.

The Duke of York and his daughtes are always 'of York' regardless of where
they are, same senario with the HRH Dukes,duchesses, Princes and Princesses
of Kent and Glouster.

The Prince of Wales and his sons are always 'of Wales' unless in or
representing Scotland when they are the Duke of Rothsey and Princes William
and Henry of Rothsey.

Peter Tilman

2004-09-24 14:00:19 UTC

Post by Rico
Other than those persons born or married into other royal, princely or noble
families from other countries, the only members of British royalty and
nobility who have country specific titles outside the UK are The monarch and
the person who holds the earldom of Burma.

There is no Earldom of Burma. There's an Earldom of Mountbatten of Burma,
but that's a different thing entirely.

Post by Rico
The Prince of Wales and his sons are always 'of Wales' unless in or
representing Scotland when they are the Duke of Rothsey and Princes William
and Henry of Rothsey.

It would be nice if it were so, but it isn't - Princes William and Harry
stay "of Wales" even when their father becomes the Duke of Rothesay.

David Eades

2004-09-25 11:11:04 UTC

Post by Rico
<snipped>

In addition to Countess Mountbatten of Burma there are also Earl
Alexander of Tunis, Viscount Montgomery of Alamein and Baroness Ryder
of Warsaw, though admittedly these are not countries but cities.

Regards,
David Eades

Post by Rico
The Queen is alway 'of Australia' when in Australia (or representing us), of
Canada when in or representing Canada, of New Zealand etc. She is also, by
agreement of the Chiefs of Fiji, still Cheif of all Cheifs of Fiji.
The Duke of York and his daughtes are always 'of York' regardless of where
they are, same senario with the HRH Dukes,duchesses, Princes and Princesses
of Kent and Glouster.
The Prince of Wales and his sons are always 'of Wales' unless in or
representing Scotland when they are the Duke of Rothsey and Princes William
and Henry of Rothsey.

wythno

2004-09-18 02:24:50 UTC

Sorry, I made a mistake again.

Post by wythno
Hello.
I'm sorry for posting questions one after another.
I often see the website styling the children of QEII 'Prince of Great
Britain and Ireland.'

Meant 'Prince of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.'

And Mr Laurence11, I meant the style of the children of QEII.
Perphaps my poor English confused you. I'm sorry.

Post by wythno
The full title is "Prince of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland". It is normally abbreviated; "Prince of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland" and "Prince of the United Kingdom" are
both acceptable.

How far is this abbreviation 'Prince of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland' accepted?
I mean, when a prince without peerage is introduced at a certain
ceremony or party, is it not inpolite?

Thanks,

wythnos

Don Aitken

2004-09-18 03:38:35 UTC

Post by wythno
Sorry, I made a mistake again.

Post by wythno
Hello.
I'm sorry for posting questions one after another.
I often see the website styling the children of QEII 'Prince of Great
Britain and Ireland.'

Meant 'Prince of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.'
And Mr Laurence11, I meant the style of the children of QEII.
Perphaps my poor English confused you. I'm sorry.

How far is this abbreviation 'Prince of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland' accepted?
I mean, when a prince without peerage is introduced at a certain
ceremony or party, is it not inpolite?

Royal personages are not introduced to people; people are presented to
them. It is assumed that the presentee knows who the royal person is.
They are sometimes announced, in which case the formula would be "His
Royal Highness the Prince [forename]", followed by "Duke of
[whatever]" if appropriate. The formula we have been discussing
appears only in writing, in one of two contexts; in certain highly
formal documents, such as Letters Patent, the full version would be
used, while in a genealogy or other things of that kind an abbreviated
form would be usual.

--
Don Aitken

Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".

Christopher Buyers

2004-09-18 08:26:45 UTC

Post by wythno
Sorry, I made a mistake again.

Post by wythno
Hello.
I'm sorry for posting questions one after another.
I often see the website styling the children of QEII 'Prince of Great
Britain and Ireland.'

Meant 'Prince of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.'
And Mr Laurence11, I meant the style of the children of QEII.
Perphaps my poor English confused you. I'm sorry.

How far is this abbreviation 'Prince of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland' accepted?
I mean, when a prince without peerage is introduced at a certain
ceremony or party, is it not inpolite?

The territorial designation is never used.

Christopher Buyers

2004-09-18 06:11:31 UTC

Part of the problem is that there are no LPs or Royal Warrants which
specify a princely territorial designation for the children or
grandchildren of the Sovereign. They only seem to exist for the title
of Prince or Princess and style of Royal Highness.

The exceptions that I have been able to find are the title of prince
created for the Duke of Edinburgh, and the extension of the titles of
prince and princess to the children of the Duke and Duchess of
Brunswick (Hannover). In the former case the territorial designation
is "of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". In
the latter case "of Great Britain and Ireland".

Cheers,
Christopher Buyers

David Eades

2004-09-25 11:35:01 UTC

Part of the problem is that there are no LPs or Royal Warrants which
specify a princely territorial designation for the children or
grandchildren of the Sovereign. They only seem to exist for the title
of Prince or Princess and style of Royal Highness.
The exceptions that I have been able to find are the title of prince
created for the Duke of Edinburgh, and the extension of the titles of
prince and princess to the children of the Duke and Duchess of
Brunswick (Hannover). In the former case the territorial designation
is "of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". In
the latter case "of Great Britain and Ireland".
Cheers,
Christopher Buyers

I wonder how many people in Ireland are aware that Princess Caroline
of Monaco became a Princess of Ireland when she married Prince Ernst
August. It seems strange that the House of Hannover should keep "of
Ireland", while those princes and princesses of the House of Windsor
born before 1949 (when Ireland became a republic) should be reduced to
"of Northern Ireland". What is the logic there?
Incidentally, 3 of the present royal dukes bear Irish titles, York is
Baron Killyleagh and Kent is Baron Downpatrick, both places being
within Northern Ireland. Gloucester's Irish earldom, that of Ulster,is
interesting in that it spans the border, six of the province of
Ulster's counties being in Northern Ireland (for decades known as "The
Six Counties" in the south), while three are in Ireland, or Eire (aka
as The Republic, aka The South).

Regards,
David Eades

Christopher Buyers

2004-09-26 06:00:29 UTC

Part of the problem is that there are no LPs or Royal Warrants which
specify a princely territorial designation for the children or
grandchildren of the Sovereign. They only seem to exist for the title
of Prince or Princess and style of Royal Highness.
The exceptions that I have been able to find are the title of prince
created for the Duke of Edinburgh, and the extension of the titles of
prince and princess to the children of the Duke and Duchess of
Brunswick (Hannover). In the former case the territorial designation
is "of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". In
the latter case "of Great Britain and Ireland".
Cheers,
Christopher Buyers

As I have said before, there is no "of anything" in the UK apart from
Prince Philip's title of 1957.

Once a title is created, it remains so forever, unless some method
exists for changing it. "Mountbatten of Burma" didn't become
"Mountbatten of Myanmar" overnight, just because that country changed
its name.

If Northern Ireland somehow ceased to be a part of the UK tomorrow,
Prince Philip's title of "Prince of the United Kingdom of Great
Britian and Northern Ireland" will remain, unless specifically
superceded.

Since Irish titles are recognised in Ireland, at least socially, I do
not see what the issue is. Infact, even officials and politicians
frequently refer to title holders by their titles. I think that some
even continued to serve as Senators after the Republic, but cannot for
the moment remember who.

They haven't even removed the pillboxes with crown's and Royal
Cipher's on them, just painted them a different colour.

David Eades

2004-09-27 12:57:34 UTC