Royal styles and titles: Files from the UK National Archives
introduction to the files cast of characters styles and titles of the British royal family

HO 144/22945




Home Office

H.O. to consult Lord Stamfordham re fees.
No agent's fees being charged by C. of R. and query any.

Warrants to be pre-dated to the Letters Patent - consult Sir Claude Schuster as to dates of latter. The L.P. will refer to the acts of relinquishment.

342,469/7

Home Office, received 18 Jul 1917

TO THE KING'S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY.

The humble Petition of His Highness Prince Leopold Arthur Louis of Battenberg, Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order, Captain in the Army.

SHEWETH

That Your Petitioner in accordance with Your Majesty's desire begs leave to relinquish the use of his style, title and attribute of "Highness" conferred upon him by Royal Warrant under the Sign Manual of Her late Majesty Queen Victoria, bearing date the fourth day of December One Thousand eight hundred and eighty six, as one of the issue of His late Royal Highness Prince Henry Maurice of Battenberg and of Her Royal Highness Princess Beatrice Mary Victoria Feodore, to relinquish for himself and his issue the use of the style or title of "Prince" and all other states, degrees, dignities, titles, honours or appellations in the Grand Duchy of Hesse or German Empire to him or to them heretofore belonging, and the designation "of Battenberg".

That Your Majesty's Petitioner is also desirous of assuming the name Mountbatten as a surname and of obtaining Your
Majesty's Warrant and Authority to effect this purpose.

Your Petitioner therefore most humbly prays Your Majesty's Royal Licence and Authority that he may relinquish the use of the said style, title, and attribute of "Highness", that he and his issue may relinquish the use of the style or title of "Prince" and all other states, degrees, dignities, titles, honours or appellations in the Grand Duchy of Hesse or German Empire to him or to them heretofore belonging, and the designation "of Battenberg", that Your Petitioner may take and use the surname Mountbatten and that such surname may be taken and used by his issue.

And Your Majesty's Petitioner will ever pray  &c.

Leopold of Battenberg

342,469/7

Home Office, received 18 Jul 1917

TO THE KING'S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY.  
The humble Petition of His Highness Prince Alexander Albert of Battenberg, Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order, Knight of Justice of the Order of Saint John of Jerusalem in England, Captain in the Army.

SHEWETH

That Your Petitioner in accordance with Your Majesty's desire begs leave to relinquish the use of his style, title and attribute of "Highness" conferred upon him by Royal Warrant under thoe Sign Manual of Her late Majesty Queen Victoria, bearing date the fourth day of December One thousand eight hundred and eighty six, as one of the issue of His late Royal Highness Prince Henry Maurice of Battenberg and of Her Royal Highness Princess Beatrice Mary Victoria Feodore, to relinquish for himself and his issue the use of the style or title of "Prince" and all other states, degrees, dignities, titles, honours or appellations in the Grand Duchy of Hesse or German Empire to him or to them heretofore belonging, and the designation "of Battenberg".

That Your Majesty's Petitioner is also desirous of assuming the name Mountbatten as a surname and of obtaining Tour Majesty's Warrant and Authority to effect this purpose.

Your Petitioner therefore most humbly prays Tour Majesty's Royal Licence and Authority that he may
relinquish the use of the said style, title and attribute of "Highness", that he and his issue may relinquish the use of the style or title of "Prince" and all other states, degrees, dignities, titles, honours or appellations in the Grand Duchy of Hesse or German Empire to him or to them heretofore belonging, and the designation "of Battenberg", that Your Petitioner may take and use the surname Mountbatten and that such surname may be taken and used by his issue.

And Your Majesty's Petitioner will ever pray  &c.

Alexander of Battenberg

342,469/7

Home Office, received 18 July 1917

The humble Petition of His Highness Adolphus Prince Charles Alexander Albert Edward George Philip Louis Ladislaus, Duke of Teck, Knight Grand Cross of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order, Companion of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Lieutenant Colonel in the Army.

SHEWETH

That Your Petitioner in accordance with Your Majesty's desire begs leave to relinquish the use of the style, title and attribute of "Highness" conferred upon him by Your Majesty's Warrant bearing date the nineteenth day of June One thousand nine hundred and eleven and for himself and his issue to relinquish lay aside [in the margin: Teck] the use of the styles, dignities, titles and honours of "Prince" and "Duke of Teck" to him or to them heretofore belonging and all other states, degrees, dignities, titles, honours or appellations in the Kingdom of Wurtemberg or German Empire to him or to them heretofore belonging, and the designation "of Teck".

That Your Majesty's Petitioner is also desirous of assuming for himself and his issue the surname Cambridge and of obtaining Your Majesty's Warrant and Authority to effect this purpose.

Your Petitioner therefore most humbly prays Your Majesty's Royal licence and Authority that he may relinquish the use of the said style, title and attribute of  "Highness", that he and his issue may relinquish lay aside [in the margin: Teck] the use of the said styles, dignities, titles and honours of "Prince" and "duke of Teck" and all otehr states, degrees, dignities, titles, honours or appellations in the Kingdom of Wurtemberg or German Empire, to him or them heretofore belonging and the designation "of Teck", that Your Petitioner may take and use the surname Cambridge and that such surname may be taken and used by his issue.

And Your Majesty's Petitioner will ever pray  &c.

Teck

342,469/7

College of Arms E.C.

Memorandum

Lord Stamfordham telephoned this morning at 11.30. that the word "relinquish" was to be restored to the Petition of the Duke of Teck in the two places and that the words "lay aside" were to be delteted and that the Duke of Teck had consented.

16, July 1917

A. S. Scott-Gatty
Garter.
.
SIR  ALFRED SC0TT-GATTY, K.C.V.O. CARTER.


342,469/7

College of Arms, E.C.
18 July 1917

Sir,

I have the honour to forward the following Petitions of 
  1. His Highness Lieutenant Colonel the Duke of Teck. GCB, GCVO.CMG.
  2. His Serene Highness Admiral Prince Louis of Battenberg, GCB & KGB, GCVO, KCMG, PC.
  3. His Highness Captain Prince Alexander of Battenberg, GCVO.
  4. His Highness Captain Prince Leopold of Battenberg, GCVO.
all of which have been drawn up on instructions from Buckingham Palace and as they are in order it is perhaps unnecessary for them to be returned to me for my report.  A Petition similar to these, to be signed by Prince Alexander of Teck, will be forwarded to you as soon as possible.   With regard to the dating of the Warrants, as these will be referred to in the Letters Patent creating three of the abovementioned Princes Peers of the Realm, the Warrants should bear dates anterior to the dates of the said Letters Patent.

I am,
Sir, Your Obedient Servant,


A. S. Scott-Gatty
Garter.

The Right Honourable
The Secretary of State for the Home Department
Home Office,
Whitehall.
S.W.1

Change of Name Wt dated 14th July
Peerage Patents
marq of Cambridge 16 July
" Milford Haven 17 "
" Carisbrooke 18 "
.


342469/7.

6th November, 1917.

Sir,

With reference to your letter of the 18th and 31st  July last, I am directed by the Secretary of State to forward, herewith, five Royal Warrants for Change of Name in favour of the Marquess of Cambridge of Milford Haven, the Marquess of Carisbrooke, the Earl of Athlone and Prince Leopold of Battenberg, and I am to suggest that the grant of these Licences be notified in next Friday's Gazette, in which issue will appear the official announcement of the passing under the Great Seal of the several Peerage Patents, which were stamped yesterday and have been forwarded to the Crown Office.

The Patents are dated as follows:-
The Marquess of Cambridge)
The Earl of Athlone              )    16 July
The Marquess of Milford Haven    17 July
The Marquess of Carisbrooke  18 July

I am, Sir,   
Your obedient Servant,

<unsigned>

Mr Alfred Scott-Gatty, K.C.V.O.
Garter King of Arms,
College of Arms
Queen Victoria street,
E.C.4.

College of Arms, E.C.4
8 Nov 1917

Sir

on behalf of Garter I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letters of the 6th instant (numbers 342 469/7 and 342 469/2) forwarding (1) five Royal Warrants for Change of Name in favour of the Marquess of Cambridge, the Marquess of Milford Haven, the Marquess of Carisbrooke, the Earl of Athlone and Prince Leopold of Battenberg (2) Royal Warrant of Precedency in favour of Count Gleichen, his wife and sisters.

I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your Obediant Servant,
Keit W. Murray
Portcullis

The Under Secretary of State
Home Office


Mr. Davies.
10, Downing Street.

As regards the remission of fees for the Princes who are to be given Peerages, it is of course possible for the Treasury to authorise their remission, but sooner or later the fact that they have been remitted will come before the notice of Parliament. There are two types of fees - Crown Office fees and Inland Revenue Stamp fees.  As regards the Stamp Fees, Parliament has to be specially asked in the Vote for Repayment to the Civil Contingencies Fund for authorisation of the remission.  As regards the other class of fees, it is not necessary to ask special authority from Parliament, but the fact of remission is brought to the notice of the Public Accounts Committee in the year subsequent to their remission.  It is therefore always possible for criticism to be made both in Parliament and the Public Accounts Committee in cases of remission,  I send you a file herewith and you will see from 6674/1900 that in a somewhat similar case, viz, the recreation of the Dukedom of Fife with special remainders the fees were remitted.  Possibly however there is more likelihood now-a-days of criticism in Parliament and elsewhere in the case of such remissions.

One may of course to avoid any possibility of Parliamentary or other criticism would be, if the Prime Minister agreed, to make a payment from the Special Service Fund which he absolutely controls. Probably the best machinery if this plan were adopted would be for the persons concerned to pay the fees in the first instance, and then to send in a claim to Downing Street for repayment (See 19182/13).

There may be also, but I am not sure, some fees payable to the Heralds College, but I think the Princes might be left to settle these themselves as they are not as high as the Crown Office fees and the Stamp Duty.

(Itd) R.B.M. 6/7.



The Fees are as follows:

(1) For the Duke of Teck, Prince Louis of Battenberg, Prince Alexander of Battenberg, who are created Marquises,
       
Crown Office  Fees
Marquisate
£300. 0. 0.
29.10. 0.
Earldom
£250. 0. 0.
26. 0. 0.
Viscountcy
£200. 0. 0.
25. 0. 0.
Patent Stamp £300. 0. 0.
Warrant Stamp 10. 0.
Docquet Stamp 2. 0.

£1130. 2. 0.

(2) for Prince Alexander of Teck, who was created an Earl,
Crown Office  Fees
Earldom

£250. 0. 0.

29.10. 0.

Viscountcy
£200. 0. 0.

25. 0. 0.
Patent Stamp £250. 0. 0.
Warrant Stamp 10. 0.
Docquet Stamp 2. 0.

£755. 2. 0.

(3) Count Gleichen and his Sisters. (There are at present no papers in H.O. about this.)

Warrant of  Precedence

Stamp Duty
£ 100. 0. 0.
Home Office  Fee
10. 2. 6
Do. for four extra names
(Countess Gleichen and three sisters.)
5. 10. 0
Change of Name

Stamp Duty 10. 0. 0
Home Office  Fee
10. 2. 6
Do. for four extra names
(Countess Gleichen and three sisters.)
5. 10. 0

£141. 5. 0.




COPY
Privy Purse Office
Buckingham Palace   S.W.

18th October 1917.

Dear  Davies,

Stamfordham has handed me your letter of  the 12th  inst., with  reference to the fees payable by certain members of the  Royal Family on assuming Peerages. The King has decided to pay all these fees himself.     Will you therefore ask Harris at  the Home Office to forward to me the whole account for these fees when they have been made out.

Yours sincerely,

sgd.   F.E. Ponsonby.

J. T. Davies Esq.
10 Downing  Street
Whitehall S.W. 1.

The Fees and Stamp Duties are as follows: -

For the Duke of Teck,
Prince Louis of Battenberg,
Prince Alexander of Battenberg
(Marquis, Earl, Viscount in each case)
On each of the three Patents
Totals
Crown Office  Fees Marquisate
£300. 0. 0. £3390. 6. 0.
29. 10. 0
Earldom £250. 0. 0.
25. 0. 0
Viscountcy £200. 0. 0.
25. 0. 0.
Patent Stamp

£300. 0. 0.
Warrant Stamp

10. 0
Docquet Stamp

2. 0.


£1130. 2. 0.
For the Prince Alexander of Teck
(Earl and  Viscount)
Crown Office Fees
Earldom £250. 0. 0. £755. 2. 0.
25. 0. 0.
Viscountcy £200. 0. 0.
25. 0. 0.
Patent Stamp

10. 0.
Warrant Stamp

2. 0.
Docquet Stamp

£755. 2. 0.
Four Change of Name Warrants
The Duke of Teck
Prince Alexander of Teck
Prince Louis of Battenberg
Prince Leopold of Battenberg
Home Office fee

£10. 2. 6.
£100. 12. 6.
Stamp  Duty

£10. 0. 0.


£20. 2. 6.
Count and  Countess Gleichen and Count Gleichen's three sisters
Warrant of Precedence


£115.12.6.
Stamp Duty

£100. 0. 0.
Home Office Fee

10. 2. 6.
Do. for four extra names at £1. 7. 6.

5. 10. 0.


£115. 12. 6.



£4361.13 0.










HOUSE OF LORDS,
S.W.1.

Confidential

30th October 1917

Dear Troup,

I am sorry to bother you on what is to me a very troublesome matter.

You may remember that in July the King conferred peerages upon Prince Louis of Battenberg, The Duke of Teck, Prince Alexander of Battenberg, and Prince Alexander of Teck, under the respective titles of Marquess of Milford Haven, Marquess of Cambridge, Marquess of Carisbrooke, and Earl of Athlone.   
                                
After an enormous amount of trouble, the Patents were duly settled and prepared. By custom, which does not seem to be based upon any written instruction to this office, we do not hand out the Patent to a newly created peer until the Patent has been  stamped.  The practice is for you to collect the fee from the peer and have the stamping operation performed, When this has been done, the Patent lies in my office and is handed to the peer to enable him to take his seat.  Without it he cannot take his seat.

In July the King was anxious, so we understood, that Lord Milford Haven should take his seat and after informal conversations between the clerks in the Crown Office and your clerks, in which we were given to understand that we might safely release the Patent although it had not been stamped, we did so release it and lord Milford Haven took his seat accordingly,

I must admit that I felt some anxiety when I did this, but it seemed to me impossible to treat this should particular peer as I should have treated any other peer, since the instructions for the preparation of his Patent had come straight from the King and we knew that the King was personally interested in the matter.

When the Marquess of Milford Haven had taken his seat he handed the Patent back to us, and it has remained in our possession ever since, waiting to be stamped.

Now the Marquess of Cambridge notifies me that he intends to take his seat tomorrow. His Patent has not been stamped and I am in the same dilemma as before.

It is hardly possible for me to refuse, yet I  run a great risk by allowing it.

I shall be very greatly obliged if you will let me know what I  am to do.  Of course  the actual collection of the  fees is a matter for you and not for us.

Yours sincerely,

Claud Schuster


Sir Edward Troup, K.C.B.



Confidential

30th October, 1917.

Dear Schuster,

I find that the fees for stamping the Patents about which you wrote to me to-day are to be paid by the King;  and that being so I do not think yon need hesitate to seal and hand over for the time being the one belonging to the Marquess of Cambridge, so as to enable him to take his seat tomorrow.

We are writing to Ponsonby for the fees and shall no doubt receive them in a day or two.

Yours sincerely,

(sgd) Edward Troup

Sir Claud Schuster.

342,469/8

Home Office, received 1 Aug 1917

TO THE KING'S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY.                

The humble Petition of His Serene Highness Prince Alexander Augustus Frederick William Alfred George of Teck, Knight Grand Cross of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order, Companion of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Companion of the Distinguished Service Order, Brevet Lieutenant Colonel and Temporary Brigadier General in the Army.

SHEWETH

That Your Petitioner in accordance with Tour Majesty's desire begs leave to relinquish for himself and his issue the use of the styles, dignities, titles and attributes of "Serene Highness" and of "Prince" and all other states, degrees, dignities, titles, honours or appellations in the Kingdom of Wurtemberg or German Empire to him or to them heretofore belonging and the designation "of Teck".

That Your Majesty's Petitioner is also desirous of assuming for himself and his issue the surname Cambridge and of obtaining Your Majesty's Warrant and Authority to effect this purpose.

Your Petitioner therefore most humbly prays Your Majesty's Royal licence and Authority that he and his issue may relinquish the use of the said styles, dignities, titles and attributes of "Serene Highness" and of "Prince" and all other states, degrees, dignities, titles, honours or appellations in the Kingdom of Wurtemberg or German Empire to him or to them heretofore belonging and the designation "of Teck", that Your Petitioner may take and use the surname Cambridge and that such surname may be taken and used by his issue.

And Your Majesty's Petitioners will ever pray &c,.

Alexander of Teck


342,469/9

Home Office, received 25 Jun 1917

see new petition in -/10

TO  THE  KING'S  MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY

The humble Petition of His Serene Highness Prince Louis Alexander of Battenberg, Knight Grand Cross of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order, Knight Grand Cross of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Knight of Justice of the Order of Saint John of Jerusalem in England, One of Your Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, Admiral in Your Majesty's Royal Navy.

SHEWETH

That Your Petitioner is desirous of assuming the surname of Mountbatten.

Your Petitioner therefore most humbly prays Your Majesty's Royal Licence and Authority that he may take and assume the surname of Mountbatten and that such surname may be borne by his descendants and such other descendants of his father His Grand Ducal Highness the late Prince Alexander of Hesse Knight Grand Cross of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath as are British subjects.

And Your Majesty's Petitioner will ever Pray &c.

Louis of Battenberg
Admiral

342,469/9
Home Office, received 25 Jun 1917

Buckingham Palace

20 June 1917

Sir,

I have the honour to request that you will be good enough to submit this my humble peition to His Majesty The King. 

I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant

Louis of Battenberg
Admiral

The Rt Hon.
The Home Secretary

342,469/10

Home Office, received 18 Jul 1917

TO THE  KING'S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY

The humble Petition of His Serene Highness Prince Louis Alexander of Battenberg, Knight Grand Cross of the Civil Division and Knight Commander of the Military Division of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order, Knight Commander of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Knight of Justice of the Order of Saint John of Jerusalem in England, One of Your Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, Admiral in Your Majesty's Navy.

SHEWETH

That Your Petitioner in accordance with Your Majesty's desire begs leave to relinquish for himself and his issue the use of the styles, dignities, titles and attributes of "Serene Highness" and of "Prince", and all other states, degrees, dignities, titles, honours or appellations in the Grand Duchy of Hesse or German Empire to him or to them heretofore belonging, and the designation "of Battenberg".

That Your Majesty's Petitioner is also desirous of assuming the name Mountbatten as a surname and of obtaining Your Majesty's Warrant and Authority to effect this purpose.

Your Petitioner therefore most humbly prays Tour Majesty's Royal Licence and Authority that he and his issue may relinquish the use of the said styles, dignities, titles and attributes of "Serene Highness" and of "Prince" and all other states, degrees, dignities, titles, honours, or appellations in the Grand Duchy of Hesse or German Empire to him or to them heretofore belonging and the designation "of Battenberg", that Your Petitioner may take and use the surname Mountbatten and that such surname may be taken and used by his issue.

And Your Majesty's Petitioners will ever pray &c.

Louis of Battenberg
Admiral


342,469/10

Home Office, received 17 Aug 1917

To the King's Most Excellent Majesty

The humble Petition of Albert Edward Wilfred, Count Gleichen, Knight Commander of the Royal Victorian Order, Companion of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Companion of the lost Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George and a Companion of the Distinguished Service Order, Major General in the Army, and of Sylvia Gay, Countess Gleichen, his wife, and of Countess Feodora Georgina Maude Gleichen, of Countess Victoria Alice Leopoldina Ida Laura, widow and relict of Percy Wilfrid Machell, Esquire, Companion of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, and of the Distinguished Service Order, Lieutenant Colonel in the Army, deceased, (styled Lady Valda Machell) and of Countess Helena Emily Gleichen, sisters of the said Albert Edward Wilfred, Count Gleichen,

SHEWETH

That Your Petitioners in accordance with Your Majesty's desire consent beg leave to relinquish the place, preeminence and precedence conferred upon them by Royal Warrant under Your Majesty's Sign Manual bearing date the Eleventh day of June 1913, and are also desirous of relinquishing for themselves and their issue the use of the titles of Count and of Countess and any other states degrees honours or appellations in the German Empire which may to them belong and of obtaining Your Majesty's Warrant and Authority to effect this purpose.

Your Petitioners therefore most humbly pray Your Majesty's Royal Licence and Authority that they may relinquish the place preeminence and precedence conferred by Your Majesty's aforesaid Royal Warrant and that they and their issue may relinquish the use of the titles of Count and of Countess and any other states degrees dignities titles Honours or appellations in the German Empire which may to them belong.

And Your Majesty's Petitioners will ever pray &c,

signed on behalf of my wife, and my sisters aforesaid

11th August 1917
Gleichen
Maj. Genl.

11th August, 1917.
Dear Lord Stamfordham,

In connection with the recent decision of the King that members of the Royal Family should relinquish their German titles we notice an article in the "Times" of the 20th June which made some interesting statements as to future practice:   e.g. (1) the titles of Prince and Princess will be confined to the children and grandchildren of the Sovereign; (2) the  titles of Highness and Serene Highness will be allowed to die out and the use of the title "Royal Highness will eventually be confined to the children of the Sovereign and the children of the Sovereign's sons.

The "Times" article is written in a definite tone so as to imply that it speaks with authority.    If these changes in practice have been decided upon would it not be desirable to have them officially recorded in the Home Office by a notification of the King's Pleasure through the Prime Minister?

Yours sincerely,

<unsigned>

The
Lord Stamfordham,
G.C.B., G.C.I.E., G.C.V.O.,
&c.   &c.    &c.

342,469/13

August  29th.1917.

Sir,

The King has been pleased to approve of the following future practice, consequent upon His Majesty's recent decision that Members of the Royal Family should relinquish their German Titles and Stylings, and I have to request that the necessary steps may be taken to give effect to His Majesty's commands: -
  1. The Titles of Prince and Princess will he confined to the children and grandchildren of the Sovereign.
  2. The Titles of Highness and Serene Highness will be allowed to die out and the use of the title  "Royal Highness" will eventually he confined to the children of the Sovereign and the children of the Sovereign's sons.
  3. That in the 3rd generation in the Male line the younger sons will assume the Family name of "Windsor" with the courtesy Title of "Younger Sons of a Duke" (assuming that all sons of the Sovereign will in due course be created Dukes).  Thus in the event of further children being born to Prince and Princess Arthur of Connaught,   they would he Lords or Lady...Windsor.
I am,   Sir,
Your obedient Servant,

R. Lloyd George

The Right Hon.
The Secretary of State.

342,469/14

Mr. Delevingne
Sir E. Troup

Sir C. Schuster asked me to go and see him yesterday to discuss certain points connected with the Letters Patent about the future style &c. of members of the Royal Family (342,469/3) some of them were points of form of no particular importance, but there was one point of substance to which he attached considerable importance:-

§ 3 of the instructions is ambiguous, but from the instance taken it is clear that the intention is to give a special style and precedence to the grandchildren of the sons of any sovereigns, not merely the reigning sovereign.  This is contrary to the principle laid down in 31 Hen.VIII cap.10 (as extended by the glosses in Coke &c), according to which the members of the Royal Family have a moveable end not a fixed status, shifting from time to time according to their relation to the reigning Sovereign.  Sir C. Schuster referred me for a clear statement of this rule to Greville's memo (Appendix to Vol. I of Greville's Journal Part II).

Sir C. Schuster is anxious, as the general question of precedence of members of the Royal Family is now to be dealt with to clear it up once for all and if possible to leave no outstanding points to cause trouble in future.  He thinks this proposal to give certain members of the Royal Family a fixed status,  irrespective of their relation to the reigning sovereign, unconstitutional and likely to cause great difficulties, and he would like to make certain, before Preparing Letters Patent, that His Majesty is fully aware of the situation.  (He admits that  the Letters Patent of l864 do the very thing that he objects to but he says that these were based on an opinion extorted by Queen Victoria from Lord Redesdale which is universally admitted to be unsound). He proposes therefore to discuss the question verbally Lord Stamfordham when he comes back to town, but was anxious to be assured that he would not be trespassing on Home Office ground in doing so. I told him that so far as I knew- Home Office had not been consulted and had had nothing to do with the setting of His Majesty's decision as to the future titles &c. of the Royal Family, that we had simply transmitted the King's instructions as delivered to us, and that it seemed to me far the most convenient plan that he should discuss the question with Lord Stamfordham as he suggested.  (It was obvious that Sir C. Schuster was thoroughly familiar with the whole matter and knew the details of the discussions and controversies which had gone on before His Majesty's decision was arrived at).

AJE
11.10.17


H.O. should be referred to before anything definite is settled.  Perhaps the Private Sec. would write to Sir C. Schuster saying that SoS will be glad if he will discuss the matter with Lord Stamfordham but asking that he (Sir G. Cave) may be referred to before anything is settled.
MD
12/X

Yes. (I do not think the constitutional point as to the reigning sovereign is of such importance.  but it seems very undesirable to carry the special titles or precedence of royalty any further than is absolutely necessary.)
CET
14.10.17

S of S
GC
20.10.17

wrote Sir Claud Schuster
24/10


342,469/16

30.10.17
Permanent Secretary to the Lord High Chancellor

Honours.
Future Style & Precedence of the Royal Family.

States result of his discussion with Lord Stamfordham and encloses, unofficially, a tentative draft of Letters & asks views of S. of S.

Minutes

See -/13 and -/14.  The two modifications mentioned in Sir Claud Schuster's letter are certainly desirable, but no one could have divined that they were intended from the instructions sent to H.O. in -/13.

The draft letters patent seem to carry out the instructions (as professed to be amended) well and briefly.  except that they do not cover such a case as that of the present Prince of Wales (see marginal note).
Point this out. Otherwise no observations.
AJE
1.11/17
ALJ
2.11.17

The Priv. Sec. should  perhaps refer at this stage to Downing St. from whom H.O. received its instructions, and ascertain that there is no objection to the proposed alteration of the instructions.
MD 2/XI

Hardly necessary. Downing Street are not interested in these details.
CET

Sof S
GC
6.11.17

Wrote to Sir Claud Schuster
S.W.H. 8/XI
further correspondence within
S.W.H. 20/XI

GEORGE THE FIFTH by the Grace of God &c.

WHEREAS her late Majesty Queen Victoria did by Her letters Patent dated the 30th day of January in the twenty-seventh year of Her reign declare Her Royal Pleasure as to the style and title of the princes and princesses of the Royal Family in the manner in the said Letters Patent particularly mentioned and Whereas We deem it expedient that the said letters Patent should be extended and amended and that the styles and titles to be borne by the princes and princesses of the Royal Family should be henceforth established defined and limited in manner hereinafter declared NOW KHOW YE that We of Our especial grace certain knowledge and mere motion do hereby declare Our Royal Will and Pleasure that the children of any Sovereign of these Realms and the children of the sons of any such Sovereign and the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales [note in margin, in Eagleston's handwriting: this would not cover such a case as that of the present Prince of Wales who was the eldest son of the second son of the Prince of Wales, the first having died without issue.  Point this out.] 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 and that such of the grandchildren of any such Sovereign as are not entitled to the style title or attribute of Royal Highness as hereinbefore in these Letters Patent declared shall hold and enjoy the titular dignity of Prince or Princess to their respective Christian names or with their other titles of honour and We do further declalre Our Royal Will and Pleasure that save as aforesaid the style title or attribute of Royal Highness Highness or Serene Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess shall not henceforth be assumed or bore by any descendant of any Sovereign of these Realms excepting always any such descendant who at the date of these Letters Patent holds or bears any right to any such style degree attribute or titular dignity in pursuance of any Letters Patent granted by Ourselves or any of Our Royal Predecessors and still remaining unrevoked It being Our Royal Will and Pleasure that the grand-children of the sons of any such Sovereign in the direct male line (save only the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales) shall have and enjoy on all occasions the style and title enjoyed by the children of Dukes of these Our Realms together with in the case of the eldest son of any grandson of the Sovereign the rank and Precedence next to and immediately after the Marquesses of the United Kingdom created or hereafter to be created and immediately before the eldest sons of Dukes of England and in the case of the younger sons of any such grandson immediately after the Earls of the United Kingdom now created or to be created and immediately before all Marquesses eldest.sons.

HOUSE OF LORDS,
the 30th of October 1917

Dear Harris,         

With reference to your letter of the 24th October, I have discussed with Lord Stamfordham the subject of the  future  style and precedence of members of the Royal Family.

On one or two small points the explanations which he gave me indicate  that the  instructions contained in the Home Office letter of the 14th September do not exactly indicate what the King wishes.      These points are as follows:-

1.      Paragraphs (1) and (2)  read together direct that there should be two classes, namely a class composed of the children of the Sovereign and the children of the Sovereign's sons who are to be entitled to the titles of Prince or Princess and Royal Highness; and another class consisting of the children of the Sovereign's daughters who would be entitled to the title of Prince or Princess without the title of Royal Highness.

Lord Stamfordham explained to me that what is really wanted is that there should be one class only, consisting of the  children of the Sovereign and the children of the Sovereign's sons who should be Princes and Princesses and Royal Highness, but the children of the Sovereign's daughters should be neither Prince or Princess, nor Royal Highness.

2.      It is desired that if there should be during the  lifetime of any King a Prince of Wales who has a grandson, as happened in Queen Victoria's reign, that grandson being in the direct line of succession should he a Prince and a Royal Highness.

Lord Stamfordham drew attention to the possibility that the Prince of Wales might have no son, and suggested that in that case the grandson of the Prince of Wales' next brother should be a Royal Highness and a Prince. I pointed out that it would be almost impossible to make sure that there would be no issue of a Prince of Wales until he was dead, and that if circumstances did arise (as they did in the case of George IV) when it was practically certain that the succession would pass to some younger branch, the matter might then be dealt with ad hoc.  Lord Stamfordham was satisfied with this and agreed.

I enclose, therefore, unofficially a tentative draft of the Letters, drawn so as to carry out the instructions with the slight modifications described above.  

If you will let me know Sir George Cave's view, I will then show the draft again unofficially to Lord Stamfordham and we can then proceed officially.

Yours sincerely,

Claud Schuster

S. W. Harris, C.B.



8th November, 1917.

Dear Schuster,

I showed Sir George Cave your letter of the 20th October enclosing a draft of Letters Patent to give effect to the King's Pleasure in regard to the style and precedence of Members of the Royal Family.    Sir George agrees generally, but he wishes me to point out that the phrase at the bottom of page 1. - "the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales" - would not cover a case such as that of the present Prince of Wales who was the eldest son of the second son of the Prince of Wales, the first having died without issue.  It also occurs to me that it would not cover a case where there was no male heir and the succession passes to the female line (a very unlikely case in present circumstances!)

Perhaps you will consider whether it would not be better to leave out these words and to let such cases be dealt with as they arise - unless you can think of some form of words which would cover every possible case.

Yours sincerely,

<unsigned>

Sir Claud Schuster.

HOUSE OF LORDS,
12th November 1917.

Dear Harris,

the style of members of the Royal Family

I am entirely in your hands as to whether we should leave out the words to which Sir George Cave draws attention.    I agree that there are many cases which they would not cover, and although I have given the matter a great deal of thought I am unable to think of any form of words which would cover every possible case, nor do I believe any such form could be devised unless it were of enormous length.

I therefore selected the normal, straightforward case and dealt with that,  intending that any cases out of the ordinary should receive special treatment when they arose.  I must admit, however, that what I call the normal case has not in fact occured in the last few hundred years. Still it seems reasonable to expect, having regard to the fact that Royal Princes
are generally married as soon as they reach marriageable age, that in normal course the Sovereign would have a grandson born to him of his eldest son, and if and when that happens it seemed to me (and to Lord Stamfordham when I mentioned it to him), in accordance with one's notions of propriety, that such a grandson should be born a Royal Highness.

Perhaps you will be good enough to let me have a definite instruction on the subject.  I do not know whether you would like me to communicate with Stamfordham before you give a formal direction. The King will probably have definite ideas on the point when it is put to him.

Yours sincerely,

Claud Schuster

S.W. Harris, Esq., C.B.


M. Delevingne

I think we may be content to have raised the point & leave Sir Claud Schuster to adopt the form which seems to him best after consulting Lord Stamfordham. Do you agree?

S.W.H.
14/XI

I should prefer to leave out the words as you suggest.  The case can only be a very exceptional one and it seems a little awkward to make special provisions for it while leaving out other cases quite as likely to occur.  But I think we may leave it to him to settle with Lord Stamfordham, merely expressing our preference for this course, if S of S agrees.

MD.
15.XI.17

I think we need not  object further if L. Stamfordham & Sir C. Schuster agree.
GC
17.11.17


20th November, 1917
Dear Schuster,

Thank you for your letter of the 12th November about the style of Members of the Royal Family.  Having raised the point referred to in my letter of the 8th Sir George Cave is content to leave it to you to settle with Lord Stamfordham. 

Yours sincerely, 

<unsigned>

Sir Claud Schuster
House of Lords

GEORGE THE FIFTH by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India,    To Our Trusty and Well Beloved Edmund Bernard Talbot Esquire, (commonly called Lord Edmund Bernard Talbot), Member of Our Royal Victorian Order and Companion of the distinguished Service Order, Deputy to Our Right Trusty and Right Entirely Beloved Cousin Bernard Marmaduke Duke of Norfolk, Earl Marshal and Our Hereditary Marshal of England, Greeting: Whereas by warrant under Our Royal Sign Manual bearing date the fourteenth day of July last past We were graciously pleased to give and grant unto Our dear Cousin His Highness Prince Leopold Arthur Louis of Battenberg, Knight Grand Cross of Our Royal Victorian Order, Captain in Our Army, Our Royal Licence and Authority that he might relinquish the use of the style title and attribute of "Highness" that he and his issue might relinquish the style and title of "Prince" and all other states degrees dignities titles honours or appellations in the Grand Duchy of Hesse or German Empire to him or to them belonging and the designation "of Battenberg", that he might take and use the surname Mountbatten and that such surname might be taken and used by his issue. Know ye therefore that in the exercise of Our Royal Prerogative We do hereby declare Our Royal Will and Pleasure that Our said dear Cousin Sir Leopold Arthur Louis Mountbatten shall upon all occasions have hold and enjoy the same style title place preeminence and precedence as the younger son of a Marquess of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.      Our Will and Pleasure therefore is that you Edmund Bernard Talbot (commonly called Lord Edmund Bernard Talbot) Deputy to Our said Said Marshal to whom the cognizance of matters of this nature doth properly belong do see this Our Order observed and kept, and that you do cause these Presents to be registered in Our College of Arms.      And for so doing this shall be your Warrant.
Given at Our Court at          this      day of      in the eighth year of Our Reign.

By His Majesty's Command.


In compliance with the request of the Secretary of State signified  in your letter of the 22nd ultimo (number 342469/17) I forward an engrossed warrant of precedence in favour of Captain Sir Leopold Mountbatten, G.C.V.O., for His Majesty's signature and return the draft Warrant.  As the latter is in accordance with previous Warrants I have not taken advantage of the suggested alterations in the margin, the word "therefore" appearing in the Warrant of Precedence in favour of Count Gleichen, his wife and sisters.  I understand that Sir Leopold Mountbatten's Warrant is to be dated anterior to that of Count Gleichen.
I am,
Sir,
Your Obedient Servant,

A. S. Scott-Gatty
Garter.


The Under Secretary of State,
Home Office,
Whitehall,
S.W.1



15th February, 1918,

342469/19.

Sir,

I am directed by the Secretary of State to return to you, herewith, the Royal Warrant of Precedence in favour of Lord Leopold Mountbatten.

The warrant has been given a date prior to that borne by the Warrant granting the same rank (that of the younger son of a Marquess) to Lord Edward Gleichen.

I am, Sir,
Your obedient Servant,

<unsigned>

Keith W. Murray, Esq., College of Arms,
Queen Victoria Street,
E.C.4.


BUCKINGHAM  PALACE

24th April,  1923.

Dear Boyd,

Though late in the day to do so, I write to ask whether it is correct to assume that by the fact of Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon marrying the Duke of York she becomes legally ipso facto "Her Royal Highness the Duchess of York" - also, that although her husband is a Prince she is not a Princess and could not become so except were the King to create her a Princess under an Order in Council ?

The question of her signature has been raised - were she a Princess she would, following the ordinary custom, sign herself "Elizabeth", as Princess Mary, although viscountess Lascelles, signs herself "Mary", being a Princess of Great Britain and Ireland, and not "Mary Lascelles".   But I conclude that the Duchess of York's signature should be "Elizabeth of York".

What would happen in the case of the Prince of Wales' marriage?  Would his wife become automatically princess of Wales, or would it be necessary to create her such by Order in Council or some similar instrument ? The answer to the last question does not press: but I should be glad if you could let me have an official opinion upon the other points which I raise.

Yours very truly,

Stamfordham

Is there any record of Anne Hyde's signature after her marraige with James duke of York.
S.


H. R. Boyd, Esq., C.B.E.,
Home Office.

COLLEGE OF ARMS.
QUEEN VICTORIA STREET, LONDON, E.C.4.

25 April 1923.

Dear Sir,

Thanks for your letter of to-day's date enclosing one from Lord Stanfordham.

Lady Elizabeth on her marriage becomes "H.R.H. the Duchess of York".    If Prince Albert had no peerage his wife's style would be "H.R.H. Princess Albert."

Her signature will I assume be "Elizabeth" unless she wishes to add another christian name to it.

Yours very truly,

H. F. Burke,
Garter

E.W. Holderness, Esq. Home Office,
Whitehall, S.I. 1


This question only came in this morning and it has not been possible to investigate it substantively.

Garter advises that the Lady's title will be H.R.H. Duchess of York and she can sign herself by her Christian name.

I asked the P.R.O. if they can trace any documents bearing Anne Hyde's signature and am told that they cd only find one letter and that a private one from the Lady to her sister.  It was signed "Anne" but clearly this is of no value.  They also told me that Charles I when Prince of Wales signed himself "York" and this was the common practice in those days.  Probably Anne Hyde signed herself therefore Anne (of) York.

The practice of members of the Royal Family styling themselves Royal Highnesses is now laid down in the letters patent of 1864 and 1917 (342469/18).  wh speak of children of any Sovereign and children of any sons of the Sovereign.  No mention is made of wives but as it is the general rule (subject to a few exceptions) that wives should take the style and title of their husband Garter's view that Lady Elizabeth should be described  as H.R.H. seems correct.

Garter does not directly answer the question whether she becomes a Princess on marriage but he does say that the wife of Prince Henry wd be H.R.H. Princess Henry if he had no peerage.

I gather from the Encyclopaedia Brit. that the appellation 'Prince' when applied to the children of the Sovereign other than the eldest son (Prince of Wales) is a courtesy title and though such children are styled Royal Highnesses they remain 'commoners' till raised to the peerage.

It wd seem therefore that where a Lady is entitled to the rank of Duchess there is no point in her being called Princess.

S.W.H.

25th April,  1923.

Dear Lord Stamfordham,

In reply  to your letter of yesterday as to the style, title and,signature of Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon after her marriage, I am desired by the Home Secretary to say that in his view there is no question that, under the settled general rule of a wife taking the status of her husband, Lady Elisabeth will, on her marriage, automatically become "Her Royal Highness", and will acquire the status of a Princess. She will not, of course, use that style any more than the Duke of York uses the style of Prince, and will become "Her Royal Highness The Duchess of York". The same argument applies to the question of signature, which should certainly be "Elizabeth".  The signature of "Elizabeth York" would be wrong, as implying that she was not of royal rank.  In this view Garter, whom we have consulted,  concurs.

The only difficulty we have found in coming to the above conclusion lies in the Letters Patent of 1917, relating to the style and title of members of the Royal Family, but the limitation there only applies to the use of the style "Royal Highness" or "Princess" by lineal descendants of the Sovereign, and there appears to be nothing in the Patent which would supersede the settled rule of law that a wife enjoys her husband's rank.

I am afraid that no signature of ANne Hyde is to be found on an official document: the only letter we have been able to trace is a private letter addressed to her sister, which is signed  "Anne", but it may interest you to know that both Charles I and James II before they came to the Throne signed  themselves "York" and not by their Christian names.

We will write you a separate letter with regard to the Prince of Wales when we have had time for further research.

Yours very truly,

<unsigned>

The lord Stamfordham, G.C.B., G.C.I.E., G.C.V.O.

15th May 1923

Dear Lord Stamfordham,

You will remember that when you wrote to us on April 24th about the style of the new Duchess of York you asked what the position would be in the event of the Prince of Wales's marriage.  We have now looked into the question and do not think there is any  doubt whatever as to the position.

The Principality of Wales is a Peerage created  by Letters Patent in substantially the same form as was used in days gone by for the creation of Earldoms.  The Letters Patent creating the present Prince create the Prince of Wales and the Earl of Chester in the same document.  The general rule that a wife's precedence is regulated by her husband's rank applies to the Prince of Wales in the same way as to other Peers, and it seems beyond question that when His Royal Highness marries his wife, whatever her own rank may be, automatically becomes Princess of Wales and a Royal Highness in precisely the same way and for the same reasons as when, for example, a Duke marries his wife at once a Duchess and her Grace.

This is borne out by the fact that when The King was made Prince of Wales in 1901, being Duke of York at the time, no reference was made in the Patent to the then Duchess of York, any more than an ordinary peerage Patent contains a reference to the wife of the grantee.  In King Edward's case he was already Prince of Wales when he married, but there again, no instrument was issued to regulate the status of the Princess.

Yours very truly,

The lord Stamfordham, G.C.B., G.C.I.E., G.C.V.O.


Buckingham Palace

16th May 1923

Dear Boyd,

Many thanks for your letter of yesterday about the question of the rank and position of the wife of the Prince of Wales in the case of His Royal Highness's marriage.

Your letter leaves no doubt in the matter that the lady, whoever she may be, would automatically become Princess of Wales and a Royal Highness.

yours very truly,

Stamfordham

H. R. Boyd Esq.
C.B.E.,
Home Office


return to Styles and Titles of the British royal family
British Heraldry Page | Search Heraldica | Heraldic Glossary | Contact

François Velde

Last modified: Apr 19, 2008