C O M M U N I T Y   F O R U M

Re: Royal Titles
Post Follow Up
Posted by: AR on October 9, 1999
In Reply to: Re: Royal Titles
Posted by AJ on February 6, 1999
Subject: Re: Royal Titles
> > Can anyone tell me why some women who marry into royalty are given the title "Princess (husband's first name)", i.e., Princess Michael of Kent, and, if she so chooses after her marriage to the youngest Royal, Princess Edward (instead of Princess Sophie)? Why can't they be called "Princess (their own first name)"? This has been bugging me and I can't seem to find anything anywhere. Thanks for an answer!
> It's just tradition, and no doubt stems from the same basis as to why women take their husband's christian name. It will probably change one day when enough people complain, but at the moment I guess it's not doing anyone any harm, so tradition overrules.

My understanding is that the forms 'Prince X.' and 'Princess X' are the exclusive property of members of the royal family. A woman marrying into the royal family is not a royal, so she has no right to use this form as regards herself. However, she receives a courtesy title bearing the female equivelant of her husband's title (so, a duke's wife is a duchess, an earl's wife is a countess, the wife of the Prince of Wales is Diana, Princess of Wales, not Princess Diana). If, however, her husband hasn't actually received his title, then 'Prince X.
is his title, and 'Princess X.' is the corresponding form of that title. It should be noted that things do remain a little better for women than for men who marry into the royal family. Men who marry royals don't even get a courtesy title, and have to keep on being Captain Mark Phillips or Sir Angus Ogilvie.


Back to Main Forum

   Copyright ©1996, 1997, 1998 Britannia Internet Magazine. Design by Unica Multimedia.
Corporate Hospitality Concert Tickets London Theatre Tickets