LCO 2/7300
Crown Office in Chancery. Warrants and Patents
June 1917
Teck and Battenberg
Relinquishment of foreign titles
Assumption of surnames
Grants of British titles
The origin of the House of Guelf or Welf is lost in immemorial
antiquity. Putting aside the fairy tales which derive the family name
from the translation into German (Welf) of the Latin Catulini -"the
Whelps"-descendants of the daughter of a Roman Senator, Cathalina, or
which claim descent from the late Merovingen Kings, there seems to he
some ground for a suggestion that a Guelf first appears in history as
the leader of a tribe called Scyrri - a Hunnish tribe forming part of
Attila's horde, who eventually became merged into the tribes of
Southern Germany.
However that may be, towards the end of the 8th Century we find a
certain Warin seated as Count of Altdorf. From him come the original
German branch of the family. His grandson was Duke of Bavaria; his
great granddaughter married Louis the Debonnair and was the mother of
the Emperor Charles the Bald, and his line continued until towards the
close of the 11th Century when it was represented by a female -
Cunigunda. This lady married the heir of the Italian House of Este and
her descendants thereupon succeeded to the Germanic estates of the
Guelf family. The Este family claim to be like the descendants of
Warin, a branch of the family of Guelf. The first of the House
to settle in Italy appears to have been an officer of the Court of
Charlemagne, representing the Emperor in the neighbourhood of Padua,
his name - Wulfhard - being as it is suggested latinised into Boniface.
The Este Guelfs, thus settled in Germany, rapidly grew in territorial
power and influence and it is said that the origin of the party names
of Guelf and Ghibelline arose from the
Battle of Weinsberg 21st December, 1140, when Conrad of Waiblingan
(Conrad of Franconia) defeated Guelf the Third. Throughout the
12th Century the rivalry between the Imperial House and the House of
Guelf continued until in Henry the Lion, Duke of Bavaria and Saxony,
the House of Guelf reached its zenith. Frederick Barbarossa then
finally overthrew the Guelfs, stripping Henry the Lion of his Duchies
of Bavaria and Saxony but permitting him to retain the Duchy of
Brunswick.
From this time until the close of the 17th Century the history of the
House of Guelf is not unlike that of any other of the German princely
families.
In 1658, however, Ernest Augustus married Sophia, daughter of Frederick
the Elector Palatine (the Winter King) and of Elizabeth only daughter
of James I and Princess Royal of Great Britain. In 1692 Hanover was
converted into an Electorate and in 1714 the then Elector, the son
of this marriage, succeeded to the throne of Great Britain and Ireland
under the provisions of the Act of Settlement. It will be seen
that Hallam's observation as to "the almost unrivalled splendour and
antiquity of the House of Brunswic" is fully justified. And it may not
be out of place to add the following observation from the work of Dr.
Halliday domestic physician to the Duke of Clarence (that is the son of
George III):- "Could the conjectured evidence of the German antiquaries
be admitted, not less than five centuries might be added to the period
of our history, and fifteen generations more, of probable
ancestors; but the highest ambition of human pride may be satisfied
with what is certain in the pedigree of the House of Guelph. There is
no sovereign house in Europe, ancient or modern, that has not been
connected with, or sprung from, some branch of this family".
If other objections to the assumption of the name of Guelf by the
descendants of this House do not exist, the name itself has sufficient
renown in history for anyone to be happy to bear it and the same may
perhaps be said of the name of Este.
Other names, which by reason of having been borne by families of which
the present Royal House traces its descent, might be considered to be
appropriate or on the other hand might be considered as too intimately
Royal for the name of a subject, are Plantagenet, Tudor, and Stuart, as
to which it may be remarked that while Plantagenet is associated almost
exclusively with a Royal House and Stuart is of great antiquity, Tudor
in its origin is only the name of a Welsh country squire.
Possibly it might be worth considering whether some compound name
indicating descent from a recent English King might not be
appropriate. Such names are FitzGeorge or FitzRoy. But FitzRoy
has now become too exclusively the family name of an English noble
house and suggests a not very creditable origin, and "Fitz",as a
prefix, perhaps become too much to indicate a morganatic or irregular
connection, as in the case of FitzClarence. Even if this were not so,
two of the families now under consideration have this distinct
characteristic that they are descended from Queen Victoria and
FitzVictoria or FitzVictor are impossible while perhaps FitzAlbert
would be rejected as suggesting rather the descent from the foreign
element in the Royal line.
If any step, as is now understood to be in contemplation, should be
taken several questions will arise which deserve consideration.
1. All the descendants of Prince Christian of Schleswig Holstein
and of Prince Henry and Prince Louis of Battenberg and the Duke of Teck
are called in this country Princes and Princesses. It would seem that
they are entitled to this style by reason of various foreign creations,
but it is at least highly doubtful whether they are entitled to any
such style by reason of any British rank or status. It was at
only a very late date that any descendants of the King, other than the
Prince of Wales, were referred to as Princes or Princesses. The
various Patents and Warrants issued by Queen Victoria are somewhat
confusing and indeed when they were issued there was very little
precedent. It is clear that under the Letters of the 30th January,
1864, sons of the Sovereign are entitled to bear the title of "Royal
Highness" and the Letters Patent recite that "the Princes and
Princesses of our Royal family descended from and in lineal succession
to the Crown.....all bear the style and title of Highness", but apart
from the difficulty of construing the words "in lineal succession to
the Crown", it is very doubtful what are the limits of the class
described as Princes and Princesses of our Royal family. In any event,
if the German authorities were to retaliate upon the families of
Schleswig Holstein, Teck and Battenberg, by depriving them of their
German titles, the members of those families in this country would
appear to be left without any names except their Christian names. The
title of Battenberg is Hessian and was created by a "collation" of 1851
conferring the title of Gräfin upon the then Countess von Hauke,
and by a further "collation" of 1858 conferring upon her and her
descendants the dignity of a Prince with the prefix of Durchlaucht.
The title of Prince of Teck is a Wurtemburg title conferred with the
prefix of Durchlaucht upon the 1st December 1863 on Francis Graf von
Hohenstein the son of Alexander Duke of Wurtemburg by his morganatic
marriage with Claudine Countess of Rhedey. The title was "recognised"
in Austria in January 1864. In 1871 the further title of Duke of Teck
(which descends by primogeniture) was added by a further Wurtenburg
Act. It will be remembered that the present Duke received the title of
"Highness" in this country on the 20th June, 1911.
The titles of the House of Schleswig Holstein (or to be more accurate
Schleswig Holstein Sondeburg Augustenburg) are far more ancient and
appear to depend partly on creations by the Empire or Denmark and
partly upon the assumption by the then head of the house of the title
of Duke of Schleswig Holstein in 1863 - an assumption which according
to the Almanac de Gotha, is said to have been recognised by Prussia in
1885. The fact that in recent years the title of Prince has in
England usually been taken to denote membership of the Royal Family,
while at the same time in Germany the title of Fursten has no necessary
connection with royalty, has no doubt led to some popular misconception
as to the status of the descendants of German Princes who have married
into the English Royal Family. By reason of Letters Patent or
Warrants issued by the late Queen several members of these families are
entitled to be styled "Highness" in England while they are at the same
time usually known as "Prince So-and-So", by reason of German
creations. This misapprehension was pointed out so long ago as in the
days of Selden who in his "Titles of Honour" (3rd Edition, 1672, p.357)
pointed out that "in regard that the Hertzogen or Dukes were of a
greater place in Germany than those Pagorum, Principes or Fursten and
the Comites or Graves of territories, or less and subordinate to them,
thence is it (say they) that even to this day the title of Prince with
the addition of a territory is less than that of Hertzogen, and greater
than Grave or Count ,in the Empire; whereas in other places in Europe
it is above that of Duke".
2. The Royal Marriage Act 1772 (12 Geo.III. c. 11) enacts that "no
descendant of the Body of His late Majesty King George the Second, Male
or Female, (other than the issue of Princesses who have married, or may
hereafter marry, into Foreign Families) shall be capable of contracting
matrimony without the previous consent of His Majesty, His Heirs, or
Successors, signified under the Great Seal and declared in Council,
..........and that every marriage or matrimonial contract of any such
descendant, without such consent first had and obtained, shall be null
and void".
Section 2 gives power, however, to any such descendant over 25 to give
notice of his intention to marry in spite of the disapproval of the
King, and to contract a good marriage 12 months after the date of the
notice, unless both houses before the expiration of the 12 months
expressly declare their disapprobation.
This enactment "is principally declaratory of the Common Law under
which the King had the care and approbation of the marriages of his
children and grand children and of the Heir Presumptive (other than the
issue of Princesses married into foreign families)". (Halsbury, Laws of
England, Vol.6, p. 370, footnote). This had been declared to be
the law by the Judges in 1772, as it had been in "The Grand Opinion"
given by the Judges in 1717 (See Fortescue Reports, 401). The form of
the question put to the Judges in 1772 was "Whether the care and
approbation of the marriages of the Royal Family, other than the issue
of Princesses married into foreign families, does belong to the Kings
of this Realm?", and this question they answered in the affirmative so
far as it related to the King's children and
grand-children and the Heir Presumptive, other than the issue of
Princesses married into foreign families. "But to what other branches
of the Royal Family such care and approbation extend, we do not find
precise determination" (House of Lords Journal 772, p.270).
It is curious to notice that the Peers who protested against the Royal
Marriage Bill put their protest, among other things, upon the ground
that "because the enacting Part of the Bill has an inconvenient and
impolitic Extent; namely, to all descendants of George the Second. In
course of time that description may become very general, and comprehend
a great number of people; and we conceive it would be an
intolerable Grievance that the marriage of so many subjects, perhaps
dispersed among the various Ranks of Civil Life, should be subject to
the Restrictions of this Act, especially as it has been asserted in
Argument, and endeavoured to be maintained by the Authority of the
grand Opinion given by the Judges in the Year 1717, that the Care and
Approbation of the Marriage includes the Education and Custody of the
Person; we fear that this extensive power would come in time to make
many of the First Families in the Kingdom totally dependent on the
Crown; and we therefore lament that the Endeavours so earnestly used in
the Committee in some Degree to limit the generality of that
description, were not suffered to take effect". This fear that
the power conferred upon the King would come to make many of the First
families totally dependent on the Crown is not likely to be realised.
But, on the other hand, the existence of so many descendants of George
II, whose descendents in turn, though subject to the Statute, will
become ever more and more distantly related in blood to the Crown,
seems likely in the future to cause great inconvenience to the
sovereign. It is suggested that if some change is to take place in the
status of the remoter descendants of Queen Victoria, it might be found
convenient to free them from the restrictions of the Royal Marriage Act
and the Common Law power which the King has over them in respect of
their relationship, and at the same time free the King from a
responsibility involved by this relationship.
Henry Reeve in a note to the
Appendix to the Greville Memoirs (2nd
Part, Vol.l. p. 396) had already in 1885 hinted at the difficulties
which were likely to arise when the descendants of Queen Victoria
became numerous. "In two or three generations from the present
time", he says, "it is not improbable that the descendants of Queen
Victoria and Prince Albert will exceed a hundred persons, and although
they will doubtless all look back with pride to their illustrious
ancestry, they will have no rank or precedency in the strict sense of
the term except such as may be conferred upon
them personally by the Crown".
College of Arms, E.C.
24th April 1917.
Dear Lord Sanderson,
The questions you ask me are not easy to answer and if I have delayed
somewhat in replying it has been with the desire to look carefully into
the facts and supply you with the details which may assist you.
s.3 of the Act of 31 Henry VIII declares that the Lord Chancellor, Lord
Treasurer, Lord President of the Council, and Lord Privy Seal, being of
the degree of Barons, shall sit above all Dukes except only such as
shall happen to be the King's son, the King's
brother, the King's uncle, the King's nephew, or the King's brother's
or sister's sons".
In terms the Act only applies to precedence in the Parliament Chamber
and only to those Royal Personages named if they are Dukes and so
entitled to sit in Parliament. It does not deal with the precedence of
female members of the Royal Family. By custom however the Act has been
applied to Social Precedence and has been generally treated as defining
the precedence of those members of the Royal Family therein specially
mentioned. The King's grandsons have been held to be included under the
term "Sons".
There is no general order of the Crown, or legislative enactment
regulating the precedence of the female members of the Royal Family.
They are included in the general tables of Precedence by analogy, or in
conformity with the direction of the Sovereign in particular cases.
The question of Princely style is more difficult. I would remark at the
outset that, with the exception of the Prince of Wales who is so
created by Letters Patent under the Great Seal, there is no rank
of Prince in the country as a degree of Peerage such as exists in
Foreign Countries. Princes of the Blood Royal, as
such, have no place in the House of Lords. They can sit
there only if created Dukes. "Prince" or "Princess" in this
country is I think a style or titular dignity, exclusively appertaining
to certain members of the Royal Family, indicative of their
Royal Descent, but a style or designation only and not a
rank. How far this style extends is a matter of great
doubt, and no general principle has ever been enunciated by Royal
Authority. I can only lay before you the following
facts:-
(1) By Letters Patent dated 30th January 1864
Queen Victoria declared that the title of "Royal
Highness" should extend to the children of the sons of
the sovereign, and the Letters Patent contained this
recital "Whereas We taking into Our Royal Consideration that the
Princes and Princesses of Our Royal Family descended from and in lineal
succession to the Crown as now established by law all bear the style
and title 'Highness'."
Of this recital I would remark,
(a) that it appears to be declaratory of
the existing custom and not to be founded on any previous
Royal Warrant to that effect.
(b) that it limits the title of
"Highness" to such as are Princes and Princesses of the Royal Family in
lineal succession to the Crown; or conversely,
it may, perhaps, be argued that it establishes the proposition
that those members of the Royal family who bear the title of "Highness"
are also entitled to the style of Prince or Prince; or even that
all those who are in succession to the Crown as by law established are
Princes or Princesses and Highnesses.
(2) In 1878 the status of the Duke of Cumberland had to be considered,
and my predecessor in office, the late Sir Albert Woods, Garter, wrote a
carefully considered memorandum for the Queen in which he gave
his opinion that "the Princely title ceases with the
grandchildren of the Sovereign and does not extend to more remote
relationship". He stated however that no precedent
could be quoted and that it might be considered a moot point
which the Queen's Prerogative alone could decide and he
suggested:-
(a) that the question of the place of the Duke of
Cumberland in the House of Lords should be referred to the Committee
for Privileges, and he intimated that falling
any order to the contrary, he should feel bound to place him
below the Duke of Northumberland.
(b) that the Queen should issue Letters Patent
defining the limit to which the Princely attributes were to extend.
(c) that the point might be considered in connection
with the assignment of a special Coronet to the Duke of Cumberland.
(3) No reference to the House of Lords was made, and
the Duke of Cumberland was placed in the Peers Roll after the Duke of
Northumberland, which place he still occupies. No
such Letters Patent as suggested by the late Garter
were issued defining the limits of the Princely Title, but by
Royal Warrant dated 29 February 1879 Arms, &c. were assigned to the
Duke of Cumberland in which the following passage occurs "And it not
appearing that any Coronet hath hitherto been appropriated to Princes
Cousins of the Sovereign We do further ordain that Our said dear
Cousin shall in future use and bear a Coronet of crosses and flowers or
leaves in every respect similar to that which was assigned to his
father".
The Duke of Cumberland was great-grandson of George III and first
Cousin once removed to Queen Victoria. He was
son of the King of Hanover and it is difficult to say (as I have
not before me the further correspondence, if any, which passed)
whether by the inclusion of the term "Prince" in this Warrant it was
intended to override the report of Sir Albert Woods as to the extent of
the Princely style in this country, or whether (as is more
probable) the term "Princes" was intended
to refer (particularly in this case) to cousins of the Sovereign
holding the title of Prince in other countries.
(4) By Royal Warrant dated 80 January 1864 Queen
Victoria granted to Prince Christian of Schleswig Holstein
(before his marriage with the Princess Helena) the style of Royal
Highness and by Warrant under the Sign Manual and the Great Seal dated
15 May 1867 (by which time Prince Christian had become
naturalised) further granted to the issue of his marriage with
the Princess Helena the style of "Highness" as a prefix to their styles
and titles, "Such issue being natural born subjects and
descendants of Our Royal House".
(5) By identically worded Warrants to
those last quoted, dated respectively 22 July 1865 and 4 December
1866 Queen Victoria conferred the style of Royal Highness on Prince
Henry of Battenberg, and the style of "Highness" on his issue by the
Princess Beatrice.
In these Warrants there is no mention of the title of Prince or
Princess as a British title.
(6) In 1891 Queen Victoria decided that the issue of the marriage
of Princess Louise Duchess of Fife and the Duke of Fife should hare the
rank and title of sons and daughters of a Duke.
(7) By Letters Patent dated 9 November 1906 Xing Edward VII
conferred upon Princess Louise Duchess of Fife the title of "Princess
Royal" , and upon her daughters the styles of "Highness" and "Princess"
and further declared that such daughters should take precedence
immediately after Royal Highnesses.
The above instances 4.5.6. and 7 suggest to me the following
remarks:- The children of Princess Christian and Princess Henry
of Battenberg were (and are) grandchildren of a Sovereign. According to
the views of the late Garter it might be argued that they were Princes
and Princesses by birth and if so (according to the recital of
the Royal Warrant of 30 Jan. 1864 quoted in (1) above) entitled to the
style of "Highness" without the intervention of a Royal Warrant. The
children of the Duchess of Fife in 1891 were great-grandchildren of the
Sovereign and, if the Princely style were held (as suggested by the
late Garter) to extend only to grand children of the Sovereign were not
entitled to the style of Prince or that of Highness. In 1905
however they were grandchildren of the Sovereign and it is not
clear why (in their case) the Letters Patent of 9 November 1905
or (in the case of the children of Princess Christian and
Princess Henry of Battenberg) the Letters Patent of 15 May 1867
and 4 December 1866 were needed, unless it be held, as a further
limitation of the Princely style, that it descends to the
grandchildren by a Son and not to the grandchildren by a
Daughter. There is, so far at I am aware, no authorities
pronouncement to this effect, and I have no papers which throw light on
the "ratio decidendi" in those cases.
(6) On the 17th day December 1913 the King
declared his consent to the marriage of the Duke of Brunswick and
Princess Victoria Louise daughter the German
Emperor. The consent was signified under the
Great Seal and entered on the Books of the Privy
Council. His Majesty therein described the Duke Of
Brunswick as "H.R.H. Prince Ernest Augustus Christian George horn
Prince of Great Britain and Ireland Duke of Brunswick and
Luneburg". It is probable that the term
"His Royal Highness" referred to his Foreign rank as Grandson of a King
of Hanover. As regards his right by birth to the
titular dignity of Prince it is to be observed that he is
great-grandson of King George III and son of the Duke of
Cumberland whose status was in issue in
1878. It might be
desirable to search the books of the Privy Council for any other
declarations of the Sovereign at to the styles of Members of the
Royal Family similar to that on the marriage of the Duke of Brunswick,
as such declarations are not recorded here. By Letters Patent
dated 17 June 1914 the King declared that the infant son of the
said Duke of Brunswick should enjoy the title of "Highness" together
with the designation of "Prince of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Ireland". This boy (born in 1914) is Great-great-grandson of
King George III.
You will I think see that the matter is one of grave difficulty. The
only Warrant or Patents which have assigned the title of Prince or
Princess la this country so far as I am aware (other than in the case
of the Prince of Wales) are those in favour of the Princess Royal
(Duchess of Fife) and her daughters (9 Nov. 1905) and the son of the
Duke of Brunswick (17 June 1914). In all the cases the style
conferred either generally or specifically has been that of "Royal
Highness" or "Highness" as a prefix to the styles to which the persons
so designated might otherwise be entitled.
The general question seems to me to be one in which, as suggested by
the late Garter, His Majesty's pleasure should be taken and officially
declared. I feel I cannot usefully do more than place the facts before
you.
Believe me,
Yours very truly,
(SD) A.S. SCOTT-GATTY
Garter.
The Lord Sanderson, G.C.B., K.C.M.G., I.S.O., &c. &c., &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
Provosts Freemen and all other Our Officers Ministers and Subjects
whatsoever TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME GREETING: WHEREAS Our most
dear Cousin HIS HIGHNESS PRINCE ADOLPHUS CHARLES ALEXANDER ALBERT
EDWARD GEORGE PHILIP LOUIS LADISLAUS, DUKE OF TECK, in the Kingdom of
Wurtemburg and Prince of Teck in the said Kingdom, Knight Grand Cross
of Our Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Knight Grand Cross of Our
Royal Victorian Order, and Companion of Our Most Distinguished Order of
Saint Michael and Saint George, has resigned and renounced for himself
and for the heirs male of his body and all other his issue begotten or
to be begotten the said states, degrees, styles, dignities, titles, and
honours of Duke of Teck and Prince of Teck respectively and all other
states, degrees, styles, dignities, titles, or honours in the said
Kingdom of Wurtemburg or Empire of Germany to him or them belonging NOW
KNOW YE that We of Our especial Grace certain knowledge and mere motion
do by these Presents grant unto His Highness Prince Adolphus Charles
Alexander Albert Edward George Philip Louis Ladislaus aforesaid our
Royal leave that he may assume and bear the surname of CAMBRIDGE and
KNOW YE FURTHER that We of Our especial Grace certain knowledge and
mere motion do by these Presents advance create and prefer His Highness
Prince Adolphus Charles Alexander Albert Edward George Philip Louis
Ladislaus aforesaid to the state degree style dignity title and honour
of VISCOUNT NORTHALLERTON In Our County of York and for Us Our heirs
and successors do appoint give and grant unto His Highness Prince
Adolphus Charles Alexander Albert Edward George Philip Louis Ladislaus
aforesaid the name state degree style dignity title and honour of
Viscount Northallerton aforesaid TO HAVE AID TO HOLD the said name
state degree style dignity title and honour of Viscount Northallerton
aforesaid unto him Prince Adolphus Charles Alexander Albert Edward
George Philip Louis Ladislaus aforesaid and the heirs male of his body
lawfully begotten and to be begotten AND of Our abundant grace do by
these Presents further advance create and prefer Els Highness Prince
Adolphus Charles Alexander Albert Edward George Philip Louis Ladislaus
aforesaid to the state degree style dignity title and honour of EARL OF
ELTHAM and for Us Our heirs and successors do appoint give and grant
unto His Highness Prince Adolphus Charles Alexander Albert Edward
George Philip Louie Ladislaus aforesaid the name state degree style
dignity title and honour of Earl of Eltham and him His Highness Prince
Adolphus Charles Alexander Albert Edward George Philip Louis Ladislaus
aforesaid by these Presents do dignify invest and ennoble by girding
him with a Sword and putting a Cap of Honour and a Coronet of Gold on
his head TO HAVE TO HOLD the said name state degree style dignity title
and honour of Earl of Eltham unto him His Highness Prince Adolphus
Charles Alexander Albert Edward George Philip Louis Ladislaus aforesaid
and the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten and to be begotten AND
know ye that We of Our more abundant grace do by these Presents further
advance create and prefer Hie Highness Prince Adolphus Charles
Alexander Albert Edward George Philip Louis Ladislaus aforesaid to the
state degree style dignity title and honour of MARQUESS OP CAMBRIDGE
and for Us Our heirs and successors do appoint give and grant unto him
His Highness Prince Adolphus Charles Alexander Albert Edward George
Philip Louis Ladislaus aforesaid the name state degree style
dignity title and honour of Marquess of Cambridge and him His Highness
Prince Adolphus Charles Alexander Albert Edward George Philip Louis
Ladislaus aforesaid by these Presents do dignify invest and ennoble by
girding him with a Sword and putting a Cap of Honour and a Coronet of
Gold on his head and by giving into his hand a Rod of Gold TO HAVE AND
TO HOLD the said name state degree style dignity title and honour of
Marquess of Cambridge unto him His Highness Prince Adolphus Charles
Alexander Albert Edward George Philip Louis Ladislaus aforesaid and the
heirs male of his body lawfully begotten and to be begotten WILLING AND
BY THESE PRESENTS GRANTING for Us Our heirs and successors that His
Highness Prince Adolphus Charles Alexander Albert Edward George Louis
Philip Ladislaus aforesaid and his heirs male aforesaid and every of
them successively and respectively may in respect of each of the said
titles respectively have hold and possess a seat place and voice in the
Parliaments and Public Assemblies and Councils of Us Our heirs and
successors within Our United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland
amongst other Marquesses Earls and Viscounts as Marquess Earl and
Viscount of Parliaments and Public Assemblies and Councils and also
that he His Highness Prince Adolphus Charles Alexander Albert Edward
George Philip Louis Ladislaus aforesaid and his heirs male aforesaid
may enjoy and use by the name of Marquess of Cambridge Earl of Eltham
and Viscount Northallerton aforesaid All and singular the rights
privileges pre-eminences immunities and advantages to the degrees of
Marquess Earl and Viscount respectively in all things duly and of right
belonging which other Marquesses Earls or Viscounts of Our United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland have heretofore honourably and
quietly used and enjoyed or as they do at present use and enjoy.
26th June 1917.
Dear Lord Stamfordham,
I enclose the draft which I showed you yesterday. It
is, of course, only in a provisional state and can be altered to
meet the King's wishes. In drawing the Patent for Prince Louis of
Battenberg we should describe him as "Our right trusty and well beloved
Counsellor" - he being a Privy
Counsellor. In drawing Prince
Alexander of Teck's we should describe him in normal circumstances as
"Our right trusty and well beloved", as he is not a Privy Counsellor
and from our point of view a Commoner, but if the King wishes that the
Duke of Teck should be described as his entirely beloved
brother-in-law, we had better use the same expression for Prince
Alexander. As regards Prince Alexander of Battenberg he would also
naturally be described as "trusty and well
beloved". He is the King's first cousin and we might
use some expression to intimate this propinquity of
blood. The difficulty is that the word "cousin" is
used generally in Patents in a conventional sense to indicate all peers
above the rank of baron.
Yours sincerely,
(sgd.) Claud Schuster
The Right Hon.
Lord Stamfordham
27th June, 1917.
Dear Garter,
Herewith a Draft of Letters Patent conferring the Marquisate, Earldom,
and Viscounty upon the Duke of Teck. Will you be good enough to
treat it purely as a draft and as strictly confidential.
I should call attention to the following points : -
I understood that you desired that the draft should contain a statement
of the renunciation of the German titles, and I have included words for
the purpose. The words are by way of recital and assume that the
renunciation has in fact taken place by some other Act or
document. There is, of course, no precedent, so far as I am
aware, for the renunciation in England of titles conferred by a foreign
Sovereign, and I suppose that properly such a renunciation ought to
take place according to the laws of the State according to the laws of
which the titles were granted. I take it, however, that the form here
used is sufficient for all practical purposes.
I have not put in any recital expressly stating that the German
appellations of "Highness" or "Serene Highness" have been renounced (I
suppose that "Highness" and "Serene Highness" are the translations of
the German appellations of "Durchlaucht" and "Erlaucht"). I
have tried to deal with these appellations by general words.
I do not know by what process the Duke has got rid, or proposes to get
rid, of his English appellation of "Highness". It was conferred
by Sign Manual Royal Warrant and I assume that it will be dealt
with in an omnibus Royal Warrant under the Sign Manual, taking
away all the "Highnesses" and "Serene Highnesses" which the King may
now wish to abolish. But so long as the present Warrant of 1911
remains unrevoked, there is a direction that the Duke shall be styled
"His Highness" 'in all deeds, records, instruments, or documents
whatsoever' which it is very difficult to disregard. On the other
hand, as it is desired - also I understand - to lay stress upon
the assumption of the family name' of "Cambridge", I am very anxious to
avoid the use of the appellation "Highness" in the present Letters
since the result of using them is somewhat ludicrous. We shall
should otherwise be obliged to call the grantee "His Highness Adolphus
etc.. Cambridge" which is as if one called a man "His Highness John
Jones".
We considered yesterday whether we could not make the Letters serve the
purpose also of a Royal License to bear the name of "Cambridge" as a
surname. Thinking it over I have come to the conclusion that if we did,
the document would have to be stamped in its double capacity both as
Letters Patent conferring a Peerage and as a Royal License. There
is no necessity for anyone to take out a Royal License in order to
assume a name.
Any one of His Majesty's subjects can call himself by whatever surname
pleases him, so long as he does not thereby deceive His Majesty's
subjects. In the case of the Royal Dukes it would be discourteous to
the King for them to assume a surname without his leave, but there is
no reason why that leave should not be given informally. I have,
therefore, turned the assumption of the surname into the form of a
recital. This will be amply sufficient
for the purposes of record.
Yours sincerely,
<unsigned>
Sir Alfred Scott-Gatty, K.C.V.O.
2nd July 17.
Dear Garter,
I have had an opportunity of talking over with the lord Chancellor the
questions which you asked me this afternoon.
My own opinion upon them is as follows:-
1. It is now too late in the day to
question Coke's dictum (4th Institute, 362) explaining
"King's nephew" as meaning "King's grandchild". His
opinion is supported by the fact that the Statute goes on to
mention King's brothers' or sisters' sons" as though they
were a class additional to "King's nephew", which certainly seems
to suggest that "nephew" in the Statute does not hear
its natural modern meaning.
It is worth noting that the House of Lords in the 18th Century seem to
have been of the same opinion as Coke, for when in 1760 Edward
Augustus, a grandson of George II, was created Duke of York and
His Majesty recommended it to the House to consider the place His said
Royal Highness should occupy in the House", the House adopted the
Resolution of the Committee of Privileges who, having "considered the
Statute of the thirty-first of King Henry the Eighth for placing
of the lords", resolved "that it is the opinion of this Committee that
His Royal Highness the Duke of York have place and precedence in this
House next after His Royal Highness the Duke of Cumberland and before
the Archbishop of Canterbury, etc." (See House of Lords Journals,
22nd April and 24th April, 1760, Vol.29, pages 658, 659, &
660). See also the cases of this use of the word "nephew"
collected in Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, 2nd Edition Vol.
II, at page 1265, and in the Oxford Dictionary, Vol.VI.
page 91, sub.tit. nephew, and particularly the quotation
from Bentley's Phalaris "among the ancient Greeks the name of the
grandfather was commonly given to the nephew".
2. The excepted class at the end of Section 4
of the Statute of Henry VIII appears to be a class of Dukes - "above
all dukes except only such as shall happen to be the King's son,
etc." That is except only such dukes as
shall happen to be the King's son, etc. I
think, therefore, that the Statute does not confer any precedence
upon such of the Royal Family as are of a less degree in the peerage
than dukes.
3. The degrees of relationship set out in the Statute
of Henry VIII are, in my opinion, degrees of relationship to the
reigning sovereign, and not to some past sovereign to whom an
individual may happen to have stood in the relationship of some uncle,
grandson, or nephew. The expression used in the Statute is "the
King". See on this matter Blackstone, 21st Edition.
Vol.1, pages 225 and following, and particularly "the more confined
sense includes those who are in a certain degree of propinquity to the
reigning prince and to whom therefore the law pays an extraordinary
regard and respect; hut, after that degree is past, they fall into the
rank of ordinary subjects, and are seldom considered farther, unless
called to the succession upon failure of the nearer lines. For, though
collateral consanguinity is regarded indefinitely, with respect to
inheritance or succession, yet it is, and can only be regarded, within
some certain limits in any other respect, by the natural
constitution of things and the dictates of positive
law". See also
Greville's pamphlet on the
precedency question (which is said to have been "carefully revised and
approved by Lord Wensleydale and some of the most eminent lawyers of
the time when it was written"); reprinted in the Greville Memoirs, 2nd
Part, Vol.1, at page 395, and especially the observations as to the
precedence of Prince George of Cambridge on pages 406 and 401.
4. For these reasons I do not think that
the Statute of Henry VIII has any bearing upon the precedence of Prince
Alexander of Battenberg if he should be created a Marquis. The
Lord Chancellor concurs generally in this opinion, though he has not
read this memorandum, and in addition to the reasons set out above he
doubts whether the precedence conferred by the Statute upon the King's
grandsons (if any such precedence is conferred) is conferred upon
the sons of daughters of the reigning sovereign.
Yours sincerely,
CS
Sir Alfred Scott-Gatty, K.C.V.O. Garter.
103
Prince Alexander of Battenberg
was born 1886
Queen Victoria died 1901.
He was therefore by birth Grandson
of the Sovereign.
He was also by birth nephew to king Edward 7th being the "son of
a sister".
If given a Peerage no matter what rank he takes by birth under the Act
31 H.8 Precedence of All Dukes [vide opinion of the late Lord
Redesdale].
This leads me to the conclusion that the whole question should be
settled by the Committee for Privileges as was the case with the Duke
of Cambridge in 1850.
[initialled; in Garter's handwriting]
4th July 1917.
Dear Lord Stamfordham
On looking at the books this morning I am completely puzzled by
Garter's statement that the case of the Duke of Cambridge was settled
by the Committee for Privileges. The first Duke of
Cambridge died on the 8th July 1850, and the late Duke took his seat on
the 25th July in that year. There is no trace
The Right Hon.
Lord Stamfordham, G.C.B., K.C.V.O.
5th July 1917.
Dear Garter,
The Lord Chancellor asks me to say that he has again considered the
matter of Prince Alexander's precedence, and that he remains of the
opinion that if the Prince is created a Marquess he will not he
entitled to any precedence in the House of lords other than that
appertaining to the date of his Patent.
I will return Lord Redesdale's memorandum later in the day.
Yours sincerely,
(sgd) CLAUD SCHUSTER
Sir Alfred Scott-Gatty, K.C.V.O.
6 July 1917
College of Arms
My Dear Schuster
I have seen both Lord Stamfordham and Prince Louis and we are all
pleased and contented with the Lord Chancellor's dictum. I enclose
"flimsies" (a nasty name) of the styles and titles and you may as well
be preparing the Letters Patent. Prince Alexander married on the
19th
of this month so they must be passed before that date. So the
dates
must stand over, not only on that account but also as to the precedence
in the House but this I shall get by Tuesday I hope.
Yours sincerely,
A.S. Scott-Gatty
Garter
I also enclose the draft Patent of Teck which seems all right.
7th July 1917.
Dear Garter,
Very many thanks for your letter of the 6th July and the flimsies
enclosed.
They still leave the question open as to how we are to deal with the
English "Highnesses" of those Princes who have had these appellations
conferred upon them by Warrant. Perhaps you will be good enough to let
me know about this.
Yours sincerely.
BUCKINGHAM PALACE
16th .July 1917.
My dear Schuster,
The King has now decided that the Marquesses should take the following
seniority:
- The Marquess of Cambridge.
- The Marquess of Milford Haven.
- The Marquess of Carisbrooke.
Will you kindly arrange that the dates of their respective Patents are
made out so as to ensure this Precedency on the Roll of Marquesses.
I count upon Lord Carisbrooke's Patent being completed before his
marriage on Thursday next.
Yours very truly,
Stamfordham
Sir Claud Schuster
The House of Lords.
17th July 1917.
Dear Lord Stamfordham,
Many thanks for your letter of the 16th July. The Patents of the
three Marquesses have been dated accordingly as follows:
Marquess of Cambridge, 16th July,
Marquess of Milford Haven, 17th July, .
Marquess of Carisbrooke. 18th July.
I assume that it is intended that the Earl of Athlone's patent should
be dated the 19th. There is no question of precedence in this
last case since anyhow he will come after the Marquesses, but it seems
reasonable that he should receive his Earldom after his elder brother
receives his Marquessate.
We learnt last night that the warrants had been signed by the
King. We are therefore sending the Patents across to the Home
Office today and are asking the officials to hare thorn stamped at
once. When this is done they will return them to us; we shall then
affix the seal and everything will be ready.
You have probably been informed by the Home Office that in normal
course the fees are supposed to be paid to that office
before the sealing.
Yours very truly,
(sgd.) CLAUD SCHUSTER
The Right Hon.
Lord Stamfordham. C.C.B., G.C.V.O.
BUCKINGHAM PALACE
18th .July 1917.
Dear Schuster,
Thank you for your letter of yesterday If you have not already dated
the Earl of Athlone's Patent the King thinks that it might fairly hear
the same date as that of his brother, namely 16th.July.
Yours very truly,
Stamfordham
Sir Claud Schuster
A question has arisen whether H.R.H. The Duke of Cambridge is under the
provisions of the Act of 31 Henry VIII. c.10 entitled to be placed in
the House of Lords as a Prince of the Blood Royal or only after the
ancienty of his Dukedom.
It is commonly but erroneously supposed that all Precedence in the
House of Lords is clearly and definitively regulated by that Statute
whereas much is still determined there in accordance with ancient usage
only.
In considering the Act in question it is first to be remarked that it
only indicates indirectly the place to which the members of the Royal
Family are entitled by enacting in the fourth clause that the Lord
Chancellor the Lord President and the Lord Privy Seal shall sit on the
left of the Throne on the higher part of the form above all Dukes
"except only such as shall "happen to be the King's son the King's
uncle the King's "nephew or the King's brothers and sisters sons".
The precedence of the Archbishops is before settled in the third
clause, and they are placed on the right of the throne, and it is
expressly enacted that the Archbishop of Canterbury shall sit first and
next to him on the same form and side the Archbishop of York and next
to him on the same form and side the Bishops.
On enquiring into the practice of the House in connection with the
above enactments it will be found that the interpretation of the
Statute is to a very great extent determined and even controlled by
ancient usage. The Act does not declare that the Archbishop of
Canterbury ranks before the Lord Chancellor unless the placing him on
the right side of the House be held to imply such precedence. But this
would equally give him precedence of the Royal Dukes whose place is on
the left side and in fact the Act does not determine that the
Royal Dukes shall be placed above the Archbishop but only
above the Lord Chancellor. It however
positively enacts that the Archbishop of York shall be next to the
Archbishop of Canterbury. By ancient usage
nevertheless the Chancellor takes precedence of the Archbishop of York
and that Prelate of the President. So special rank is
enacted for the Bishops bat they are ordered to be placed on the same
form and next to the Archbishops. This according to a strict
interpretation of the letter of the Act would appear to give them
rank immediately after them, whereas in accordance with ancient usage
they rank after Viscounts. These points have no immediate bearing
on the question under discussion but are quoted as proving that the Act
has never been interpreted according to its strict letter, but
that ancient usage has always been held to regulate
the precedence under it.
H.R.H. the Duke of Cambridge was born during the lifetime of his
Grandfather King George III and consequently being born a King's
grandson is probably entitled to be accounted as a King's son for
the purposes of the Statute of Henry VIII. But
it is unnecessary to enter into any lengthened discussion of this point
for unquestionably as nephew of King George IV and King William IV he
has stood in that relationship to the Crown which under the
Statute entitled him to Royal precedence. Those
who are disposed to deny to H.R.H. the privilege contend that as he is
only first cousin to Her present Majesty he is not included in any of
the degrees to which precedence is reserved.
It becomes therefore necessary to investigate the nature
end character of the precedence So assigned to certain persons of the
Blood Royal. It is clearly a privilege altogether distinct from their
Peerages. It is a rank which belongs to them whether they are peers or
not. Kings sons, brothers, uncles, and nephews do not as such sit in
Parliament, but when summoned to the Bouse of Lords in right of their
Peerages they are in right of their descent entitled to a certain
precedence there above that conferred by their Peerages. The only
question therefore which remains to be determined is whether this
privilege which is one of inheritence and not of creation is of a
changeable character and can be lost by an alteration in nearness of
relationship to the Reigning Sovereign.
The Statute is silent upon this point. It must therefore be determined
by ancient usage and the general custom of the country in such matters.
There can be no doubt that there is but one invariable rule on this
subject. Whatever rank a person is born to or acquires afterwards by
inheritance is retained for life. The sons of a Duke have rank as such.
The brothers or uncles of a Duke have no rank as such. But the sons of
a Duke do not lose their rank when by the death of their father they
become brothers or uncles of the person who inherits the Dukedom. The
unchangeable character of this privilege of rank once inherited is
proved in a still more remarkable degree in the female descendants, for
the daughters of a Duke retain that rank for life, though the Dukedom
through which alone they are entitled to it may have become extinct.
There is a marked distinction between the rank derived from Royal and
that from noble descent. The latter becomes merged in a peerage
although the rank of that peerage may be below that to which the party
may have been entitled by descent; the rank derived through the Blood
Royal is expressly acknowledged in the Act in question to give
precedence to those to whom it belongs above the ancienty of their
Peerages. If therefore as has been shown the rank derived from noble
descent has always by ancient usage been held to remain unchanged by
any increased remoteness of the relationship of the party holding it
from the actual possessor of the title from which it is derived, so
much the more must the rank derived from Royal descent be held to be
unchangeable. Since the passing of the Act in the reign of Henry VIII
there is only one precedent to be found connected with this subject,
and that is conclusive upon it. The late Duke of Gloucester during the
life of George III was the King's nephew and as ouch entitled to
precedence under the Act. On the accession of George IV he became
King's cousin only, but his place in the House of Lords remained
unaltered. It is however urged by those who resist the Duke of
Cambridge's claim that the Duke of Gloucester retained his rank only
because he had been once placed in it. It is extraordinary how anyone
at all acquainted with the subject can think of putting forward such an
argument. The rule of the House of lords both by ancient usage and by
the Statute is that all the Peers shall he placed in their several
degrees after the ancienty of their peerages. The exceptions are in
favour of the peers of the Blood Royal and certain high officers of
State. These latter are right of their Offices placed in the House and
on the Roll, some above lords of their own degree only, and some above
all other Lords except the Blood Royal and the Archbishops; but
each placing gives them no right to retain that precedence except
during the tenure of such offices, and the placing of the late Duke
of Gloucester as King's nephew in the reign of George III
entitled him to retain that place, if he had ceased to have a right to
rank as King's nephew on the accession of George IV, any more
than the place of Lord Truro at the head of tbe Dukes Bench
a a few weeks ago would entitle him to sit there tomorrow if he had
ceased to be Chancellor;
For these reasons it appears that the Duke of Cambridge is
entitled to be placed as a Royal Duke under the provisions of the
Act of Henry VIII as being entitled to that rank as a
King's nephew and probably as a King's grandson.
(Signed) REDESDALE
August 17th, 1850.
DRAFT.
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 Provosts Freemen and all
other Our Officers Ministers and Subjects whatsoever TO WHOM THESE
PRESENTS SHALL COME GREETING: WHEREAS Our entirely
beloved brother-in-law [HIS HIGHNESS] ADOLPHUS ALEXANDER ALBERT EDWARD
GEORGE PHILIP LOUIS LADISLAUS, Knight Grand Cross of Our Most
Honourable Order of the Bath, Knight Grand Cross of Our Royal Victorian
Order, Companion of Our Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael
and Saint George and Colonel in Our Army, [lately called His Highness
Adolphus Charles AlexanderAlbert
Edward George Philip Louis Ladislaus Duke of Teck] has at Our desire
relinquished for himself and for the heirs male of his body and
all other lawful issue begotten or to be begotten the use of the states
degrees styles dignities titles and honours of Duke of Teck and Prince
of Teck respectively in the Kingdom of Wurtemburg to him or to them
heretofore belonging and all other states degrees styles dignities
titles honours or
appellations in the said Kingdom of Wurtemburg or in the Empire
of Germany to him or to them heretofore belonging and has with Our
Royal leave assumed for himself and for his lawful issue begotten and
to be begotten the surname of Cambridge NOW KNOW YE that We of
our especial grace certain knowledge and mere motion do by
these Presents advance create and prefer the said Adolphus
Charles Alexander Albert Edward George Philip Louis Ladislaus Cambridge
to the state degree style dignity title and honour of VISCOUNT
NORTHALLERTON in Our County of York and for Us Our heirs and successors
40 appoint give and grant unto him the said Adolphus Charles
Alexander Albert Edward George Philip Louis Ladislaus Cambridge the
name state degree style dignity title and honour of Viscount
Northallerton aforesaid TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said name state
degree style dignity title and honour of Viscount Northallerton
aforesaid unto him the said Adolphus Charles Alexander I Albert Edward
George Philip Louie Ladislaus Cambridge and the heirs male of his body
lawfully begotten and to be begotten AND further know ye that of
Our abundant grace We do by these Presents further advance create
and prefer the said Adolphus Charles Alexander Albert Edward George
Philip Louis Ladislaus Cambridge to the state degree Style
dignity title and honour of EARL OF ELTHAM and for Us Our heirs and
successors do appoint give and grant unto the said Adolphus Charles
Alexander Albert Edward George Philip Louis Ladislaus Cambridge the
name state degree style dignity title and honour of Earl of Eltham and
him the said Adolphus Charles Alexander Albert Edward
George Philip Louis Ladislaus Cambridge by these presents do dignify
invest and ennoble by girding him with a Sword and putting a Cap of
Honour and a Coronet of Gold on his head TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said
name state degree style dignity title and honour of Earl of Eltham unto
him the said Adolphus Charles Alexander Albert Edward George Philip
Louis Ladislaus Cambridge and the heirs male of his body lawfully
begotten and to he begotten AND further know ye that We of Our more
abundant grace do by these Presents further advance create and
prefer the said Adolphus Charles Alexander Albert Edward
George Philip Louis Ladislaus Cambridge to the state degree style
dignity title and honour of MARQUESS OF CAMBRIDGE and for
us Our heirs and successors do appoint give end grant unto him the said
Adolphus Charles Alexander Albert Edward George Philip Louie
Ladislaus Cambridge the same state degree style dignity title and
honour of Marquess of Cambridge end him the said Adolphus Charles
Alexander Albert Edward George Philip Louis Ladislaus Cambridge by
these Presents do dignity invest and ennoble by girding him with a
Sword and putting a Cap of Honour and a Coronet of Gold on his
head and by giving into his hand a Rod of Gold TO HAVE AND TO HOLD
the said name state degree style dignity title
and honour of Marquess of Cambridge unto him
the said Adolphus Charles Alexander Albert Edward George Philip
Louis Ladislaus Cambridge and the heirs male of his body
lawfully begotten and to be begotten WILLING AND BY THESE PRESENTS
GRANTING for Us Our heirs and successors that the said Adolphus
Charles Alexander Albert Edward George Philip Louis Ladislaus Cambridge
and his heirs male aforesaid and every of them successively and
respectively may in respect of the said Marquessate Earldom and
Viscounty respectively have hold and possess a seat place and
voice in the Parliaments and Public Assemblies and
Councils of Us Our heirs and successors within Our United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Ireland amongst other Marquesses Earls and
Viscounts as Marquess Earl and Viscount of Parliaments and Public
Assemblies and Councils and also that he the said Adolphus
Charles Alexander Albert Edward George Philip Louis Ladislaus Cambridge
and his heirs male aforesaid may enjoy and use by the name of Marquess
of Cambridge Earl of Eltham and Viscount Northallerton aforesaid All
and singular the rights privileges pre-eminences immunities and
advantages to the degrees of Marquess Earl and Viscount respectively in
all things duly and of right belonging which other Marquesses Earls or
Viscounts of Our United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland have
heretofore honourably and quietly used and enjoyed or as they do at
present use and enjoy.