Talk:Royal Highness

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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. 青い(Aoi) 10:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


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[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs)

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:BarlinerFlag of Berlin.svgchat 06:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Louise Windsor, "debatable"[edit]

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:BarlinerFlag of Berlin.svgchat 06:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Royal Highness[edit]

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":

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)