How did the 1917 Letters Patent affect titles for descendants of King George V?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The 1917 Letters Patent issued by King George V sharply limited who may bear the style “Royal Highness” and the titular dignity “Prince/Princess”: it confined those honors to the children of a sovereign, the children of the sovereign’s sons, and the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales; other descendants were to “have the style and title enjoyed by the children of Dukes,” i.e., a lower rank [1] [2] [3]. The rule has been amended and practised variably since 1917 — most notably by Elizabeth II’s 2012 Letters Patent expanding titles for the Cambridge children — and modern commentators and legal scholars debate its purpose and future [4] [5] [6].
1. What the 1917 Letters Patent actually said
George V’s document declared that “the children of any Sovereign” and “the children of the sons of any such Sovereign” and “the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales” shall have and at all times enjoy the style and title “Royal Highness” and the dignity “Prince/Princess”; it also stated that, except where already granted and unrevoked, other descendants may not assume those styles and titles and instead that grandchildren in the male line (other than the one exception) shall “have the style and title enjoyed by the children of Dukes” [1] [3].
2. Why George V did it — political and practical motives
Contemporary and later accounts place the Letters Patent in the wartime context of 1917: George V Anglicised the royal house name and moved to remove German titles and to slim the public face of the dynasty amid republican sentiment and cost concerns. Historians and popular coverage link the measures to patriotic optics in World War I and to a desire to reduce the size and expense of those carrying HRH status [6] [7] [8].
3. Immediate practical effects on George V’s extended family
The 1917 move cut back the presumptive princely ranks of many continental and extended relatives; a handful of individuals who had used Germanic princely styles were affected, and the new rule curtailed broad use of “Highness” and other comparable dignities [9] [10] [11]. Sources note the Hanoverian branch and some other continental lines disputed or ignored parts of the change, illustrating that enforcement depended on political authority and recognition [10].
4. How later sovereigns changed or interpreted the rule
The Letters Patent were not immutable. George VI issued Letters Patent in 1948 to make the children of Princess Elizabeth (later Elizabeth II) princes and princesses despite being grandchildren in the female line, and Elizabeth II issued a 2012 Letters Patent granting HRH and princely titles to all children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales — an explicit amendment to George V’s single-exception rule [9] [4]. These interventions show the reigning monarch retains authority to vary the distribution of styles [4].
5. Modern controversies and legal debate
Recent royal-family disputes and media coverage (for example around Archie and Lilibet Mountbatten‑Windsor) have revived interest in the “George V convention.” Legal scholars argue the 1917 framework clashes with contemporary succession rules (e.g., absolute primogeniture) and with evolving ideas about a role-based monarchy; commentators urge clarity on whether titles should follow strict hereditary formulae or be used more selectively to reflect public duties [5] [6].
6. What the Letters Patent do not settle
The documents do not automatically determine who will carry out royal duties or receive public resources; they set formal styles and can be amended by later Letters Patent. Sources note that practice — who uses HRH publicly, who receives working roles and security — can diverge from strict entitlement under the 1917 text and subsequent amendments [2] [5] [6]. The sources do not provide a comprehensive list tying each living descendant of George V to their exact entitlements under every amendment — that is not found in current reporting [1] [3].
7. Takeaway: a legal instrument with political aims, flexible in practice
The 1917 Letters Patent definitively narrowed the automatic entitlement to princely style, responding to wartime politics and institutional concerns [6] [7]. But monarchs since George V have used the same prerogative to expand or clarify titles when they judge it necessary [9] [4]. The document remains authoritative yet amendable, and contemporary debate focuses on whether future sovereigns will preserve, widen or further restrict the circle of HRHs in line with modern expectations [5].
Limitations: this account synthesises the provided documents and commentary; available sources do not list exhaustively every descendant and every post‑1917 Letters Patent amendment beyond those cited above [9] [4] [3].