Charles and Anne only were HRH from birth not through their paternal line as prince and princess of Greece and Denmark, neither as the children of the heiress presumptive as they would only have become HRH the Duke of Cornwall and Rothsay and HRH the Princess Anne on their mother's succession.
That would have been the same had their father been an Imperial Highness be it Grand Duke Vladimir or an Austrian Archduke (both no option due to religious objections as Elizabeth could not marry a Roman Catholic and keep her place in line of succession and Vladimir needed to marry a woman who was raised in or had converted to Russian Orthodoxy) or an Ethiopian or Japanese prince (also rather unlikely at the time).
As the son of a born princess of Edinburgh Vladimir would most likely have become the Duke of Edinburgh. 
Previous Message
Suppose Queen Elizabeth of the UK had married him, instead of Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark. Would he have been allowed to retain the qualifying rank of Imperial Highness, as prince consort to Her Majesty? I understand that he was born only a prince and a Highness (1917), but elevated to the grand ducal title and the style of Imperial Highness after his the proclamation of his father, Grand Duke Kirill Vladimirovich as the titular Emperor of All Russias -- becoming the first disputed head of the house of Romanov.
The son himself would likewise assume headship of the dynasty, upon the death in 1938 of his father. Despite the fact that the empire of Russia, Romanov titles and styles have generally been recognized internationally, like those of other deposed dynasties -- carrying the same legal weight.
That's why I got to speculating on the alternative scenario whereby the British queen married someone whose qualifying rank was higher than Royal Highness -- and the implications for their descendants. To be sure, titles and styles are not unlimited in dynastic male lines, according to the Fundamental Laws. Still, for at least one generation, one could have witnessed interesting consequences.
As I understand, Prince Philip was born royal, but technically became a commoner when becoming naturalized as a British citizen and subject of his future father-in-law, King George VI. Similarly, his cousin Katherine was born a princess of Greece and Denmark (the youngest daughter of King Constantine I), but legally became a commoner upon naturalization in the UK. As it was, the king conferred upon her the rank of a duke's daughter, when in 1947 she married Major Richard Brandam: henceforth, she was styled as Lady Katherine Brandam.
Her kinsman, however, became a British royal by incorporation -- just as Prince Felix of Bourbon-Parma got incorporated into the Luxembourg's nobility. Although not declared a prince of the UK until 1857, he was conferred the title Duke of Edinburgh at marriage , with the style of Royal Highness. Nevertheless, it was only the Letters Patent of 1948 which guaranteed that his own children be born with princely titles and the HRH. Otherwise, they would have been only the Earl of Merioneth or Lady Mountbatten. It's clear, then, that in the UK the style of Royal Highness is not hereditary, something that a father passes to his children.
But suppose Vladimir, as head of the Russian imperial dynasty (and hence able to transmit the style of Imperial Highness for at least one generation) become the British prince consort instead? What, then, would have been his likely title and style? And those of his children, whether born before or after their mother's accession to the throne as queen regnant?
Message Thread 
« Back to index