Talk:Royal Highness/Archive 1

2005
I accidently created duplicate page under His/Her Royal Highness, i think the articles should be merged and put under His/Her Royal Highness then referring afterwards to the HRH


 * I don't quite understand what you mean by, "put under His/Her Royal Highness then referring afterwards to the HRH." However, thanks for reporting the duplicate article; I've merged the information from your His/Her Royal Highness article into this one. &#38738;&#12356;(Aoi) 10:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Revised:

HRH is below HIH and Britain is no exception - there is no evidence for it being an exception

Since James I (therefore certainly since change of name to Windsor in 1917) Kings/Queens have never used the style HRH as stated but always HM,, they are not styled as "also" HRH. The information about "Majesty" is more relevant in another article, maybe?

The last paragraph added wasn't very clear - plus the 1917 letters patent revoked the style "Highness" from great-grandchildren of the sovereign through the male-line which is a different title altogether:

"In Letters Patent dated November 20, 1917, King George V undertook further restructuring of the royal styles and titles by restricting the titles of Prince or Princess and the style of Royal Highness to the children of the sovereign, the children of the sovereign's sons, and the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. It further stated all titles of "the grandchildren of the sons of any such Sovereign in the direct male line (save only the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales) shall have the style and title enjoyed by the children of Dukes."1 At that point, the three year-old became known as Alastair Arthur Windsor, Earl of MacDuff." (taken from article Prince Alastair of Connaught)


 * Re HRH vs HIH, Queen Victoria insisted that those of her relatives who were HIH as well as HRH were styled "HR&IH" rather than "HI&RH" whilst in Britain, as she refused to accept that HIH took precedence. Proteus (Talk) 15:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

True, but the whole reason she did that was because HIH is higher than HRH and therefore she tried to make it lesser by placing it second. That was her preference, it doesnt change the fact that the Imperial title is higher.


 * By what authority? In Britain, the Sovereign is the only person who can pass judgement on such things, and Queen Victoria decided that it wasn't. Proteus (Talk) 16:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

She didn't explicitly decree that "Royal Highness" was higher than "Imperial Highness" and it wasn't expressed by letters patent - it was just a choice of style, like "Duchess of Cornwall" for a Princess of Wales. Besides, the relatives of Victoria who held the Imperial title were VARYINGLY referred to as Royal Highnes, Royal and Imperial Highness and Imperial and Royal Highness. Also, Victoria was a Queen and Empress yet was always referred to as a Queen first and foremost, yet the fact an empress precedes a queen is never disputed. This is a unique situation as imperial titles do not exist in the British monarchy. Victoria was insisting on this usage so that an in-law would be taking their spouse's rank rather than a general demotion of Imperial titles - this happened also with Princess Beatrice styling herself Princess Henry of Battenberg rather than still the higher form The Princess Beatrice. Also note if Victoria had thought Imperial titles were lesser she would not have taken the title Empress of India for herself.She altered styling but could not alter the Imperial rank, which was higher. The Duchess of Edinburgh, although styled "Royal Highness" was nonetheless "Imperial Highness" and Victoria tried to hide this fact by insisting she was not called "Imperial Highness" or placing it second(which she had no right to do, since the Imperial title was not granted under her jurisdiction but of the Tsar's). Victoria could not dictate that Imperial Highness was lower than Royal Highness as it had nothing to do with her - she could not lower the status of a foreign royal, because all imperial holders were foreign. An imperial princess does not become lower than a British princess just by entering England - it was only if she married and as a member of the British royal family was under Victoria as a family member, NOT under her authority as an Imperial princess. Finally, although the title was placed second as HR&I or ignored it was still higher in precedence, which is shown by the very fact Victoria tried to demote it in the first place. Just because one title was placed second did not mean it was in fact inferior although this is what Victoria was attempting to imply. The title "king-emperor" shows this too - although placed second, no-one disputes an emperor is higher than a king.


 * You have a very odd (and, needless to say, incorrect) understanding of the way titles work, especially in Britain. The world is not a role-playing game. Proteus (Talk) 17:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

My understanding is not odd and certainly not incorrect (thats the last thing it is). Titles in Britain when being examined in such fine detail have many ambiguities and many historical exceptions exist, and you will often find people making up the rules as they go along (e.g, a divorced Princess of Wales's title, the title of "Princess Consort" etc) which is why there is the possibility that either side of an argument MAY be right. You do have a good point but I think you're relying too much on an isolated case, which, in any case, doesn't explicitly show what you're trying to prove.

Change of title
Wouldn't it be better to change this title to "His/Her Royal Highness" and have it redirected from "HRH"? Because the article title isn't very revealing with just an acronym, plus could create links from other articles that mention it (Jayboy2005)

Prince Philip
How was he "created" HRH? Wasn't he already entitled to this style as a Prince of Greece and Denmark? Or had he relinquished all this? Morhange 22:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no provision for the renunciation of Greek or Danish titles and styles, at least there wasn't at the time. At best, Philip relinquished the use of the Greek style HRH and the Danish style of HH in the United Kingdom. Afterward, he was created a British HRH. Charles 23:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

You correct that is no provision for renunciation of Greek or Danish titles and styles. But, Prince Phillip naturalisation as british citizen and rennouced his Greek and Danish nationalities. Technically his ceased to hold Danish and Greek titles when he ceased to be citizen of those countries. However, he could have continued to use them by courtesy - many people in a similar situation have. He choose not too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.206.21.20 (talk • contribs)


 * You are wholly incorrect. There is no requirement to be a Danish or Greek citizen in order to hold titles of those respective countries. Charles 01:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * In 1947 he became a subject of the King of the UK, would allegiance to a foreign monarch affect his entitlement to those titles?  User:Barliner[[Image:Flag of Berlin.svg|25px]]chat 06:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Louise Windsor, "debatable"
I fail to see what is debatable. The parents, with paternal grandparents have chosen to use the style of an earl's daughter. They have not denied the entitlement or right to use the style HRH Princess. Such a denial could be described as debatable, being contrary to the letters patent  User:Barlinerchat 06:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Royal Highness
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Royal Highness's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "RoyalCourt090224": From Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden:  From Wedding of Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden, and Daniel Westling:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Section on Sweden
The section on Sweden is very unbalanced. For example, it does not mention anything about all the royals who have been deprived of their Royal Highness due to unapproved marriages, among them 3 of the current king's sisters. There are also allegations made which cited sources do not support. I'll try cleaning t up a bit. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Princess of Wales
The section reading ...

Almost a year before, according to the unsubstantiated claim of writer Tina Brown, the Duke of Edinburgh had warned the Princess of Wales: "If you don't behave, my girl, we'll take your title away." The Princess of Wales is said to have replied: "My title (The Lady Diana Frances Spencer) is a lot older than yours, Philip." She noted that the Spencer family, the family she was born to, is older than the House of Windsor (as named). However, though the Spencers arose in the 15th century as gentry (with unproven claims of patrilineal descent from the most ancient House of le Despenser (originally "Tancarville") whose name has been recorded since 920 AD), the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas were first mentioned in the 10th century. Genealogically speaking, the Spencers are direct legitimate yet morganatic descendants of Charles I Louis, Elector Palatine, whose own family was founded in 980 AD.[7]

is unnecessary and rather unreliable.
 * I've removed it. Its neither sufficiently sourced nor frankly that relevant to this article Garlicplanting (talk) 11:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Japan
The article could do with a section on the Japanese monarchy, even though the English versions of Japanese-language styles/titles can only be approximate.Ehrenkater (talk) 19:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Megxit, Prince Harry
The article could do with clarifying whether there is a distinction between the letters patent that removed the right of Diana, Princess of Wales, to use the style HRH, and the recent agreement of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex to not use HRH. I think there are no letters patent removing the right from the Sussexes, it's just that they're agreeing not to use it. Either way, the article should make clear the distinction. -- Ralph Corderoy (talk) 15:02, 19 January 2020 (UTC)