Is there a rule for using or not using the definite article before people’s titles?

Question

The use of the definite article before titles is a confusing area - I always hear “Queen Elizabeth visited” and never “The Queen Elizabeth visited”. But I always hear “The Prince of Wales visited” and never “Prince of Wales visited”.

Is there a rule for using — or not using — the definite article before people’s titles?

Yeah, but you never hear The Prince Charles visited... either. You will hear The Queen visited.... The difference is that when the title is used without the name of the person who carries the title, use the article. When the title and the name of the person are in apposition, eg, The President, Barak Obama, visited..., use the article. There may be some exceptions to this rule, but I can't think of one right now. — , Dec 25 '12 at 10:21
@BillFranke Here's an example. There's an unusual capital letter there too. Protocol is actually quite complicated. — Andrew Leach, Dec 25 '12 at 10:33
@AndrewLeach Surely that should be, HRH Prince Charles, The Duke of Rothesay? What is the reason for that being the way it is? — spiceyokooko, Dec 25 '12 at 10:38
@spiceyokooko As I say, protocol is complicated. It's his own website; it's actually right. I'll see if I can dig out a reference as to why this form is formally correct (and it is formal), but that's not a task for Christmas Day. — Andrew Leach, Dec 25 '12 at 10:41
@AndrewLeach I agree, it is very complex and as you rightly suggest, I think people should research each instance for correct usage. — spiceyokooko, Dec 25 '12 at 10:44
@AndrewLeach: I think that the title of the speech is simply mispunctuated: "A speech by HRH The Prince Charles, Duke of Rothesay, at the Scottish Business in the Community 30th Anniversary Dinner" should be "A speech by HRH The Prince, Charles, Duke of Rothesay, at the Scottish Business in the Community 30th Anniversary Dinner". — , Dec 25 '12 at 11:38
@Barrie: And The Queen Elizabeth is two ships: QE I & QE II. — , Dec 25 '12 at 11:40
@Bill Franke. No, I don't think that's the case at all. HRH the Prince, Charles . . . suggests that HRH the Prince on its own is an apprpropriate form of address, which it most certainly is not. — Barrie England, Dec 25 '12 at 11:45
@Barrie: I can't argue with you. I'm an American and don't know the protocol for British or other royalty. Perhaps it's necessary to add "of Wales" to "HRH The Prince" to make it an appropriate form of address? It's never appropriate to shorten it for convenience? I can certainly understand why that wouldn't be the case in formal ceremonies, though, where protocol is primary. — , Dec 25 '12 at 11:53
Here's support for you: The Duke’s full title is HRH The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Merioneth and Baron Greenwich, KG (Knight of the Garter), KT (Knight of the Thistle), OM (Order of Merit), GBE (Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire), AC (Companion of the Order of Australia), QSO (Companion of The Queen’s Service Order), PC (Privy Counsellor). — , Dec 25 '12 at 11:54
Maybe it's because there are so many princes and earls and dukes and princesses etc. that this form of address developed. Were there only one, there'd be no need for it, just for "HRH The Prince". — , Dec 25 '12 at 11:55
This Wikipedia article http://tinyurl.com/697g28p gives HRH The Prince John, HRH The Princess John and HRH The Princess Mary as examples of the forms of address of the sovereign’s son, wife and daughter respectively, when they are not peers or peeresses. It would be necessary to verify this with a more authoritative source, but it sounds right to me. But it doesn’t account for ‘HRH The Prince Philip’ or ‘HRH The Prince Charles’. Both are peers, and the Duke of Edinburgh is not the sovereign’s son. — Barrie England, Dec 25 '12 at 12:02

score 2 · Accepted Answer · answered Dec 25 '12 at 10:25

2

In certain cases and contexts these are virtual proper names of persons. It should be Her Majesty The Queen. This is why you get The Prince of Wales, The Archbishop of Canterbury, The President of the United States.. etc.

So if you were referring to Prince Charles, it would be Prince Charles, The Prince of Wales, not The Prince Charles. If you referred to his title it would be The Prince of Wales.

So The applies to the title, not necessarily the person but it depends on case and context.

answered Dec 25 '12 at 10:25

spiceyokooko

2,509

See my comment to Bill in the question. In some circumstances, the heir to the Throne is "The Prince Charles, Prince of Wales". – Andrew Leach Dec 25 '12 at 10:36
@AndrewLeach Fair enough, I did add the caveat in my answer that it depends on case and context. Titles are a minefield! – spiceyokooko Dec 25 '12 at 10:42
1

No! You do not capitalize The in an honorific. It is *the Queen of England, where neither the* nor of are allowed to be capitalized. Similarly, it is the Seven Hills of Rome that we speak of, never The Seven Hills Of Rome. – tchrist Dec 25 '12 at 15:14
I would need to see an official "The Prince Charles, Prince of Wales". I think it would be "Charles, Prince of Wales" or even "The Prince of Wales Charles, (Duke of etc.)". Multiple Princes, though, would be paired with multiple principalities. – MetaEd Dec 25 '12 at 15:55
@MετάEd I gave a link to the horse's mouth. tchrist is wrong: you do do this in certain specific circumstances. Sometimes I do wish Americans would simply defer to UK people talking about UK eccentricites. Not only is it "The Prince Charles", but The really is capitalised. – Andrew Leach Dec 26 '12 at 21:14

score 1 · Answer 2 · answered Jul 23 '14 at 23:52

Not correct Rory! The children of the Sovereign are all styled with the definite article e.g HRH The Prince Edward, HRH The Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon. The confusion arises when the children of the Sovereign are granted honorific titles or peerages e.g The Prince Of Wales, The Princess Royal. The Duke of York etc. The first two of these examples are only accorded to the children of the Sovereign. Therefore, officially, The Prince of Wales is styled in this way or as The Prince Charles but not coupled together. Similarly with The Princess Anne.

The definite article is accorded to the remaining children of the Sovereign e.g. HRH The Prince Andrew, Duke of York though often in common usage reduced to HRH The Duke of York. However, the definite article accords the status of a child of a Sovereign whereas the grandchild of a Sovereign has no definite article and is styled either HRH Prince Edward, Duke of Kent or less formally, HRH The Duke of Kent, the definite article here belonging to the peerage rather than the individual.

score 0 · Answer 3 · answered Dec 25 '12 at 17:46

0

"The Prince of Wales" means the particular prince at that instant. But "Queen Elizabeth ", as we know, we can't have articles before proper nouns.

answered Dec 25 '12 at 17:46

Bhushan Firake

223

Are you saying that the Prince of Wales is not a proper noun? Then why is it capitalized? – tchrist Dec 25 '12 at 18:46

score -1 · Answer 4 · answered Oct 23 '13 at 20:36

-1

Children of the Sovereign are known as 'The Prince ....'. So The Prince Charles, Prince of Wales is correct, whereas all other princes etc do not receive the 'The' - eg Prince William. So, when The Prince Charles becomes King, Prince William will become The Prince William, Duke of Cambridge (until he is created Prince if Wales, when he becomes The Prince William, Prince of Wales). In this case it's actually quite straightforward.

answered Oct 23 '13 at 20:36

Betty Bookend

9

Not correct. We wouldn't say, "The Prince Charles." We would say, "Prince Charles" The definite article is not used except in some very specific situations. – Rory Alsop Oct 24 '13 at 12:38

Is there a rule for using or not using the definite article before people’s titles?

4 Answers4

Linked