Patent (pronounced pat-nt or peyt-nt)
(1) The
exclusive right, granted by a government to an inventor (or owner of the
invention) to manufacture, use or sell an invention for a certain length of
time.
(2) An
invention or process protected by an exclusive right to manufacture, use, or
sell it.
(3) An
official document conferring on the inventor the exclusive right to
manufacture, use, or sell an invention; letters patent.
(4) Protected
by an exclusive right given to an inventor to manufacture, use, or sell an
invention; patented; the holding of an exclusive right to manufacture, use, or
sell an invention.
(5) Relating
to, concerned with, or dealing with the granting of exclusive rights to sell or
manufacture something, especially inventions (ie the matter of “patent law”
dealt with by a “patent attorney”.
(6) Of or
pertaining to a right, privilege etc conferred by a patent.
(7) To take
out a patent on; obtain the exclusive rights to (an invention, process, etc) by
securing a patent.
(8) In US
law, the instrument with which by which the federal government conveys a legal
title in fee-simple (freehold) to public land.
(9) An ellipsis
of patent leather (a varnished, high-gloss leather used in fashion for shoes,
handbags, coats and such).
(10) As patent
leather, a hide treated in a way which results in a very shiny surface.
(11) Of
plate glass, ground and polished on both sides,
(12) In
pharmaceuticals, (of a medication) sold without a prescription and usually
protected by an exclusive legal right to manufacture (described often as “patent
remedies” or “patent drugs”).
(13) In medicine,
(of a duct or passage in the body) open or unobstructed.
(14) In medicine
(including veterinary medicine) of an infection, in the phase when the organism
causing it can be detected by clinical tests.
(15) In phonetics,
open, in various degrees, to the passage of the breath stream.
(16) In metallurgy
to heat a metal above a transformation temperature and then quench (cool) it in
preparation for cold-drawing, wire pulling etc.
(17) In gambling,
the combination of seven bets on three selections, offering a return even if
only one bet comes in.
(18) In baking
(of flour), fine, and consisting mostly of the inner part of the endosperm of
the grain from which it is milled.
(19) In botany
(and sometimes in horticulture and agriculture generally), expanded or
spreading.
(20) Lying
open; not enclosed or shut in (often as “a patent field” and applied also to
open doorways, passages and such.
(21) Readily
open to notice or observation; evident unconcealed, conspicuous, palpable,
clear (usually in the phrase “patently obvious”).
(22) To
originate and establish as one's own.
(23) A
characteristic or quality that one possesses; in particular (hyperbolic) as if
exclusively; a monopoly (often in the form “got a patent on”).
(24) An official document granting a right (the significance of the "patent" element in "letters patent" being it indicated the document was openly published an accessible to all (ie in the sense of the Latin patēns).
(25) Any
right granted by such a document.
1250–1300:
As an adjective, patent was from the Middle English patent, from the Latin patent-,
stem of patēns (open, standing open),
present participle of patēre (to
stand open, lie open). The Middle
English noun patent (document
granting an office, property, right, title, etc.; document granting permission,
licence; papal indulgence, pardon) was either a clipping of “letters patent”, a
translation of the Medieval Latin littera
patēns or litterae patentēs (open
letters) or was directly from the Anglo-Norman and Middle French patente (which endures in modern French
as patent) or a clipping of the Anglo-Norman
lettres patentes, Middle French lettres patentes, lettre patente and Old French patentes
lettres (document granting an office, privilege, right, etc or making a
decree). The adjective patent (granting
a right, privilege, or power) emerged late in the fourteenth century while the sense
of “open to view, plain, clear” was in use by at least 1505 and use as an
adverb dates from the mid fifteenth century.
The verb dates
from the 1670s and was derived from the Middle English nouns patent & patente (wide open; clear, unobstructed; unlimited; of a document:
available for public inspection), from the Anglo-Norman & Middle French patent and directly from their etymon the
Latin patēns (open; accessible,
passable; evident, manifest; exposed, vulnerable), the present active
participle of pateō (to be open; to
be accessible, attainable; to be exposed, vulnerable; of frontiers or land: to
extent, increase), from the primitive Indo-European pete or peth- (to spread
out; to fly). The verb originally was
used in the sense of “to obtain right to land" by securing letters patent”
while the meaning “obtain a copyright to an invention” was in use by at least
1822, building on the earlier meaning (recorded in 1789) “obtain an exclusive
right or monopoly” a privilege granted by the Crown by the issue of letters
patent. Patents issued thus (for a
licence granted by a government covering a new and useful invention, conferring
exclusive right to exploit the invention for a specified term of years) came
into use in the 1580s. Patent is a noun,
verb & adjective, patenter, patentor, patentee, patentholder, patency, patentability,
impatency, patency & prepatent are nouns, patented is a verb &
adjective, patenting is a verb, patentable, antipatent, patentlike, patentfree,
patentless & impatent are adjectives and patentably & patently are adverbs;
the noun plural is patents. The derived
forms (nonpatentable, unpatentability, repatent etc) are used as required.
The Alice Geek TeckTM strapless bra was released in 2015, its novelty being the use of “Patent-Pending Geek TeckTM” panels which exploited the Van Der Waals forces (intermolecular electrostatic attractive forces) created by their silicone construction with microscopic hair-like structures known as setae (analogous to those found on the feet of geckos, famous for their ability to attach themselves (upside-down) to ceilings, using, if need be, only one foot. The theory was the Geek TeckTM panels would “stick to” the wearer’s skin thereby enhancing the most important design imperative of the strapless bra: staying up. US patent 9,402,424 was assigned to Kellie K apparel LLC but it seems not to have succeeded which is unfortunate because there’s a gap in the market for a genuinely gravity-defying strapless bra.
The familiar term “patent pending” (often seen stamped on products in the abbreviated form “Pat. pend.”) is used to indicate a patent application has been filed but has not yet been granted. The significance of the use is: (1) it can act to deters competitors, signalling to potential “copycats” that patent protection is expected to be granted, thus discouraging attempts at imitation, (2) it’s thought to lend credibility to a product, thus conferring a marketing advantage, (3) it can make a product more attractive to potential investors because a patent grants years of protection from competition and (4) the existence of the label can in subsequent infringement proceedings lead to a higher award of damages because it can be used as evidence the other party did not act “in good faith”. However, the mere existence of a “Pat. Pend.” label does not provide legal protection and others may still (at their own risk) copy and sell the product, something of significance because patent applications can take months (or even years in complex or contested matters) to process and there have been cases where a company violating a subsequently granted patent has “come and gone” (taking with them their profits) by the time a patent is granted. Importantly, a manufacturer cannot mark something as “Pat. Pend.” just to try to ward of potential competition and in most jurisdictions it’s unlawful to use the term if no application has been filed. In legal slang, “patentees” and “patentspeak” are terms referring to the legal and technical jargon used in the handling of patents while “patentometrics” is the statistical analysis of patents.
In law, “patent
troll” is an informal term used (usually disparagingly) to describe an
individual or company which acquires and enforces patents in an aggressive and
opportunistic manner, often with no intention of producing, marketing, or
promoting the subjects of the patents. The term is based on the similar concepts
“trademark troll” and “copyright troll” and in more formal use a “patent troll”
is usually styled a “patent assertion entity” or a “non-practicing entity”. The seemingly curious business model (making
money by neither producing or selling stuff to which one holds the exclusive
patent) works usually through litigation or (more typically) the threat of
litigation, exploiting the cost–benefit imbalance between contesting versus
settling a lawsuit. Sometimes
speculatively but usually because potential targets have been identified, patent
trolls will (1) buy older or unused patents from bankrupt companies, small
inventors or concerns which have no further use for them or (2) file new
patents that are broad or vague, something especially prevalent in highly
technical fields where change is rapid (anything IT related the classic example)
and specialists can amass hundreds or even thousands of patents, some
unambiguously enforceable, some with enough of a hint of validity to be a
creditable threat. Thus equipped, patent
trolls search for possible targets for litigation, the ideal victims being (1)
companies so big they might settle a claim for what is (for them) a small sum
(though most lucrative for the trolls who may have done little more than send a
C&D (cease & desist letter)) or (2) smaller companies which cannot
afford the cost of litigation (they might settle for less but it’s still a
profit to the troll) because even if a case successfully is defended, the cost
of doing so can, in the US, run to millions.
What that
means is the troll’s business model has three potential revenue streams: (1) licensing
fees, (2) one-off settlements and (3) court-awarded damages (in the rare
instances in which a case goes to trial).
With no costs associated with R&D (research & development),
product testing, production or marketing, a troll’s overheads are comparatively
minimal and limited usually to legal and administrative fees. Highly developed practitioners of trolling
also use elaborate company structures made up of trusts, shelf companies and
such, often in trans-national form, the jurisdictions chosen on the basis of
which is most advantageous for a certain purpose (secrecy, taxation
arrangements, limitations of liability etc); all these layers can protect a
troll’s assets from counter-claims.
Patents are also “just another asset” and once assembled become a portfolio
which can be leveraged as investment vehicles, something done often by the
device of bundling them in securitized form, sometimes S&Ded (sliced &
diced) for sale to investors, not as individual patents but as a percentage of
the whole.
Some
products become known as “patent something” because they gained their original
uniqueness by virtue of patent protection.
In nautical use, a “patent log” is a mechanical device dragged from the
stern of the vessel and used to indicate the craft’s speed through the water; most
consist of a rotator (ie on the principle of a propeller) and reading unit,
connected by a stiff line (usually covered with a flexible, protective skin). Even in the age of electronic sensors, patent
logs remain in use because they are simple, reliable, low maintenance units
which require no external power source, the rotator spinning as it proceeds astern,
the rotations of the connecting line registered by a wheel works and dial
mounted to the vessel's rail. The
earliest versions of mechanical logs had the counting attached directly to the
rotator, meaning the apparatus had to be hauled aboard to “take a reading” so
the US innovation in the 1860s of a connecting line (spinning a la the
mechanical speedometers which later would appear in automobiles) was an advance
which made the thing a “real time” device.
For many
reasons, to know a vessel’s true speed was an important part of seamanship and
“log” element in the name came from the old way sailors determined speed. Since the sixteenth century, the technique
had been to attach knotted rope to a wooden log which was heaved overboard and,
the knots being tied at regular intervals, the number of knots counted off over
a short period indicating the speed.
From this came the standard unit of speed at sea being the “knot” (one
knot being equal to one nautical mile per hour and few things annoy old salts
more than the expression “knots per hour”).
The log method obviously was inexact because of the variables to which
it was subject so the mechanical device was a great advance. A company founded by Thomas Walker (1805-1873)
as a nautical instrument maker based in Birmingham (in England about as far as
one can get from the sea) received a patent for a mechanical log in 1878,
sometime before one was granted by the US patent office although that
application was submitted in 1877.
“Patent leather” describes a hide which has been coated with a process using
a substance which produces a high-gloss finish, so shiny as to be described as
“like a polished, glazed ceramic”. In
fashion, the attraction of patent leather is that despite the brittle
appearance, it retains all the flexible qualities and durability of leather
while being almost waterproof (although intrusion can of course be possible at
the seams). Most associated with shoes,
boots, handbags and coats, the original patent leather seems exclusively to
have been produced in black but a wide range of colors have long been available
so the material quickly became a favourite of designers. In the late 1700s when patent leather first
became commercially available in England, the lacquer coating was linseed oil-based
but what revolutionized things and made mass-production more viable was the
invention by metallurgist Alexander Parkes (1813–1890) of Parkesine, the first
man-made “plastic”; it was one of his dozens of patented inventions, thus the
name “patent leather”. It was Parkesine
which enabled the development of multi-colored patent leathers and because the
product literally is “leather with a synthetic coating”, it’s one of the
natural products most easily emulated (in appearance) by a plastic alternative
although the imitations never possessed the same qualities. Interestingly, many of the various processes
used early in the nineteenth century to patent leather were never patented.
There were
also “patent theatres”. In England
letters patent were for years a standard device in the administration of
censorship, something that attracted increased interest from governments as soon
as the printing presses began to operate at scale. The printing press was one of the great
creations of civilization but their availability appalled priest and politician
alike because the last thing they wanted was “the common people” being given
ideas (which they knew quickly would become heresy and sedition). Under Henry VIII (1491–1547; King of England
(and Ireland after 1541) 1509-1547) proclamations against heretical and seditious
publications soon appeared and in 1538 a statute was added declaring books must
be licensed for printing by the Privy Council or other royal nominees. What this did was create a flourishing black
market for works produced by illegal presses and this battle between censorship
and “underground” publications would for some 450 years characterize the way
things were done in England. One
critical development came in 1557 when the Stationers' Company was granted a “charter
of incorporation” which provided that only members of the company (or others
holding a special patent) were allowed to print any work for sale in the
kingdom. In 1586, the ever imaginative
Court of Star Chamber devised an ordinance which directed that no printing
press might be set up in any place other than London (with the exception of one
each for the university towns Oxford and Cambridge) and rigorously, the Star
Chamber enforced this law with their usual zeal and although the court was in
1641 abolished by the Long Parliament, governments didn’t lose their fondness
for censorship; under the Commonwealth restrictions were tightened with all “unofficial
periodicals” (a move
aimed at troublesome “newsletters, precursors to modern magazines and
newspapers) banned and while the Rump Parliament of 1659 permitted “licensed
newsbooks”, severely their issue was restricted.
During the
Restoration period neither the government’s strategy or tactics much changed
and material deemed libellous or offensive (values which cast a wide net) to
the state or Church could see offenders fined, imprisoned pilloried or hanged
(the last invoked if the offence was judged “high treason”). By the eighteenth century things had somewhat
been relaxed but Thomas Paine (1737-1809) was nevertheless compelled to flee to
France when his book Rights of Man
(1791) was declared “subversive” and a warrant issued for his arrest; even an
article condemning the use of disciplinary flogging by the military could
attract a fine of Stg£1,000 (then a small fortune) and two years in
prison. Being popular entertainment and
accessible to even the illiterate, censorship of the theatre was important and
the licensing of individual plays seems to have begun as early as the 1640s with
an inspired piece of legislation in 1572 deeming all players (actors) “rogues and
vagabonds” unless they belonged to (1) a baron of the realm, (2) somebody
of higher rank or (3) were licensed by two justices.
Later, London’s
theatrical companies worked under royal patents created by
issue of the appropriate letters patent.
Curiously, governments, while much concerned with the preservation of
political & ecclesiastical power, had rather neglected public morality but
the Puritans were appalled
by even the idea of the theatre. Oliver
Cromwell (1599–1658; Lord Protector of the Commonwealth 1653-1658) and his ilk
thought the stage a place of immorality and in 1542 the Long Parliament
prohibited all dramatic performances. Inevitably, with theatres closed, an
underground movement arose, the best documented of which were the
Droll-Humours. At or after the Restoration, letters
patent were issued so companies could be formed and in 1662 these conferred on
the recipients the exclusive right to present, in public, plays in public
within the City of Westminster. It
proved a lucrative business and after the deaths of the original holders of the
rights, lawyers began their squabble over to whom or what entity the letters
patent should be conveyed; the disputes dragged on for some time before
ultimately they were settled on the Covent Garden and Drury Lane theatres. These enduring institutions thus came to be
called the “patent theatres” and what the letters called “drama” was confined
to the patent theatres. However, nobody
had bothered to define exactly what constituted “legitimate drama” and that
remained a source of dispute among critics and lawyers, resolved only when the
Theatres Act (1843) rendered the original letters patent inoperative.
In stone-masonry,
a “patent hammer” is a specialized hammer used by stonemasons for dressing
stone, the head having two faces formed by a number (at least 2 but usually
with 4, 6, 8, 10 or 12 “cuts” (blades) broad, thin chisels bolted side by side);
the bolts could be loosened, allowing the blades to be removed to be re-sharpening
or replaced. The head of a patent hammer
was heavy and the tool was used for finishing granite or the harder grades of
sandstone and the choice of which to use was dictated by nature of the stone
and the finish desired. Historically,
the most commonly used jaw opening was ⅞ inch but other graduations between ½
and one inch were widely produced and in the jargon of the trade, the number of
cuts per nominal inch became the nominal description (eg an “8-cut finish”). Essentially a time-saving device, use of a patent
hammer allowed a stonemason to render a grooved surface more quickly and with
more consistency than when using a single hand chisel. The tools were in various places known also
as the “patent bush hammer” “Scotia hammer” and “patent Scotia hammer”
although, as a general principle, the Scotias usually were lighter and featured
smaller jaw openings. The tool gained
its name from the patent granted in 1828 to Joseph Richards (1784-1848) of
Braintree, Massachusetts and although the evidence suggests similar devices had
for centuries been in use (presumably crated ad-hoc by stonemasons or tool-makers),
this issue of the 1828 patent triggered an onrush of patent applications for
stonemasonry tools and the US Patent Office (which classed them as “bush
hammers” or “mill picks” to distinguish them from other hammers) soon had
literally dozens of variants on the books.
In English
law, letters patent and royal decrees (now more commonly styled as royal
proclamations) are instruments with which the Crown exercises its prerogative
powers, but they differ in form, purpose, and legal effect. Letters patent are formal, written documents
issued under the Great Seal, open for public inspection, declaring the
monarch’s will in a matter of public record; they are addressed to all subjects,
not to an individual or private recipient.
As an administrative device, letters patent are used to confirm rights,
titles, offices, or privileges (including creating or conferring peerages or
knighthoods) granting corporate charters (universities or city incorporations
etc), issuing patents of invention or land grants and appointing public offices
of state (governors, judges etc). As legal
devices, they operate as instruments of grant rather than command and
unusually, take effect by virtue of being published, not by their delivery, registration
or some form of gazetting. Importantly,
they can be subject to judicial challenge and voided if found to have been
issued ultra vires (a legal maxim from the from Latin ultra vires (beyond the power) meaning (in this case) held to be beyond
the monarch’s lawful prerogative) so although sounding something of an echo of
the days of absolute power being exercised from the throne, they do operate
within modern constitutional limits.
A royal
proclamation is a command or declaration made by the monarch and issued over
their signature but almost always drafted by the responsible ministers in
government and published in the Gazette.
While a term like “royal proclamation” sounds like it might be used for
commands like “off with their heads”,
in modern use, typically, they’re invoked to announce or enforce policies,
order, or regulations and that this is done under the royal prerogative is
merely procedural. So, while most are
prosaic, (the regulation of this and that; announcing public holidays or public
ceremonies etc), historically, royal proclamations have declared war and
routinely still are the instrument summoning or dissolving parliament. In the narrow technical sense the royal
proclamation operates as an executive command rather than a grant but has a
valid force of law only when issued under a lawful prerogative or statutory
authority (since the Bill of Rights (1689), proclamations cannot create new
offences or change existing law without the consent of both houses of parliament
(as modified by the Parliament Acts (1911 & 1949)).
Because
most are procedural, letters patent usually barely register in the public
consciousness but, around the world, their use in late 2025 in the matter of Andrew
Albert Christian Edward Mountbatten Windsor (b 1960) certainly made
headlines. Mr Mountbatten Windsor once
was styled HRH (His Royal Highness) Prince Andrew, Duke of York, KG (Knight
Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter), GCVO (Knight Grand Cross of
the Royal Victorian Order) but the controversy about his alleged conduct with
certain young women associated with the convicted child sex offender Jeffrey
Epstein (1953–2019) meant that between 2022 and 2025, almost all his many
titles gradually were (in one way or another) put into abeyance before his
brother Charles III (b 1948; King of the United Kingdom since 2022) issued the
letters patent effectively removing all.
Until that
point, the gradual nibbling away of Mr Mountbatten Windsor’s array of titles
had been an example of inept crisis management with him in 2022 ceasing to be a
“HRH” in a “public capacity” but remaining one in his “private capacity”. That didn’t mean he could use it only in his
bedroom but meant it couldn’t be used were he to appear at any “official public
event”. While one being able to call
oneself “HRH” only in private (presumably among consenting adults) might sound
a bit of a slap on the royal wrist, it is possession of styles and titles which
determine one’s place in the “order of precedence”, something of great
significance to those who move in certain circles because where one sits on the
pecking order determines things like who has to bow or curtsy to whom and
whether at events one gets to sit somewhere nice with the dukes & earls or
is shunted off into a corner with the provincial mayors and eldest sons of
knights. As a weapon, the removal of the
“HRH” has been used against the Duchess of Windsor (Wallis Simpson; 1896–1986),
Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) and the Duchess of Sussex (Meghan Markle; b
1981). Although Mr Mountbatten Windsor’s
notorious television interview (approved by the palace courtiers against the
advice of the media pros) seemed at the time the nadir of the crisis management
of the “Andrew problem” (ranking with Boeing’s handing of the 737 Max’s
“issues” and Intel’s attempt to “non-handle” the flaws in the original
Pentium’s inbuilt math co-processor), the “drip feed” of the way his styles and
titles gradually were eroded made things worse still. As a footnote, the former Prince Andrew is
now known as “Andrew Mountbatten Windsor” rather than “Andrew Windsor” because
his father (Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh (1921–2021)) was upset his sons
wouldn’t bear his name so the “Mountbatten” was added.
Revelations
about his alleged conduct continued to emerge and in mid October, 2025, it was
announced that following discussions with the king, he would cease to make use
of the styles of address to which he was entitled as a duke and twice a knight
of the realm (both knighthoods being in orders of chivalry in the personal gift
of the sovereign (his mother) with no involvement by government). That didn’t mean he ceased to be a duke (with
subsidiary peerages) or the possessor of two knighthoods in orders of chivalry,
just that he would no longer “use them”.
That meant for all public purposes he would revert to what he was by
virtue of his birth: plain old “Prince Andrew”.
Had the revelations stopped there, the “fix” might have worked but as
fresh accusations continued to appear, not only was the press making trouble
but there were suggestions “the Andrew problem” might be discussed on the floor
of the House of Commons where members enjoy what’s called “parliamentary
privilege” (the right to make even defamatory statements without risk of legal
action). What appeared to be of
particular interest to some politicians was Mr Mountbatten Windsor remaining eighth
in the line of succession to the British throne (and thus the monarchies of
Australia, the Bahamas, Belize, Canada and such).
Accordingly,
on 30 October 2025, the palace announced the king would be removing all his brother's
styles, titles, and honours. While
technically this does not revoke the peerages, it does mean they are no longer
“effective” and thus not affecting the vital order of precedence. On 3 November, the king issued letters patent
stripping Andrew of both the style “HRH” and title “prince”. That the king can do this by the mere inking
of a sheet of vellum is because (1) letters patent are a powerful tool and (2)
in 1917 George V (1865–1936; King of the United Kingdom & Emperor of India
1910-1936) effectively codified the monarch’s authority in such matters; no
involvement by parliament being required.
In 1917 the UK was at war with the German Empire so anti-German
sentiment was about and as well as changing the royal family’s name from the
obviously Teutonic Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor, the opportunity was taken for
an “agonizing reappraisal” of the domestic structure.
Thus, King
George V issued letters patent restricting use of the titles “Prince” & “Princess”
and the style “HRH” to certain close relatives of the monarch: (1) the children
of the sovereign, (2) the male-line grandchildren of the sovereign (3) and the
eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales (ie the heir
apparent’s eldest son). Other
descendants of the monarch would be styled as children of dukes (Lord or Lady). In doing this George V wasn’t claiming or
asserting a new royal prerogative (it had long been acknowledged) but his issue
of the 1917 Letters Patent was the moment it was codified and assumed the force
of a formal decree. That’s why it’s
misleading to say the UK doesn’t have a written constitution; it’s just all the
bits and pieces don’t appear in one consolidated document al la the US,
Australia or the old Soviet Union. The
words of the 1917 Letters Patent were:
“Whitehall, 30th
November, 1917. The KING has been
pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Ireland, bearing date the 30th day of November, 1917, to declare
that the children of any Sovereign of these Realms 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 hold and enjoy the style, title or
attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess
prefixed to their respective Christian names or with their other titles of
honour; and that 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 and enjoy in all occasions the style and title enjoyed by the
children of Dukes of these Our Realms.
And forasmuch as it has
become expedient that the usage whereby the style, title or attribute of Royal
Highness and of Prince or Princess shall be borne by other descendants of Our
said Grandfather of blessed memory shall cease, We do hereby further declare
that the said styles, titles or attributes shall not henceforth be borne by
such descendants of Our said Grandfather save those above mentioned.”
Legally, “Our said
Grandfather” actually referred to Victoria (1819–1901; Queen of the
UK 1837-1901) and what the proclamation did was revoke the practice from Victoria’s
time where almost all male-line descendants of the monarch were styled as
princes or princesses. Some countries
still operate on the Victorian basis and a particular example is Saudi Arabia,
a nation where, under their interpretation of the Sharia, kings and princes may
enjoy more than the four wives which is the accepted limit in most Islamic
nations which permit polygyny. The royal
scions have thus proliferated and if one moves in certain exulted circles,
apart from the odd waiter or hairdresser, it can be possible to go through life
and never meet a Saudi who is not a prince or princess. In Saudi, for many reasons, it would be
difficult to change the system but in Demark there recently was a cull of
princes and princesses (the titles that is) with those who didn’t make the cut
reverting to being count and countess of this and that. For almost a century the 1917 Letters Patent remained
the convention followed but on 31
December 2012, Elizabeth II (1926-2022; Queen of the UK and other places,
1952-2022) issued letters patent extending both HRH and Prince or Princess
status to all the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales:
“Whitehall, 31st
December, 2012. The QUEEN has been
pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm dated the 31st day
of December 2012 to declare that all the children of the eldest son of The
Prince of Wales should have and enjoy the style, title and attribute of Royal
Highness with the titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their
Christian names or with such other titles of honour.”
What that
achieved was a bit of “title creep”.
Under the George V rule, only the eldest living son of the eldest son of
the Prince of Wales would have been styled a prince; younger siblings would not
have been princes or princesses but rather Lord or Lady Mountbatten-Windsor. What Elizabeth II’s 2012 Letters Patent did
was equalize things so all the children of the eldest son of the Prince of
Wales would be both HRH and princes or princesses; it’s a thoughtful
great-grandmother who thinks of a way to avoid sibling rivalry. There have since been no further general
amendments to the 1917 convention although the royal prerogative has been used to
grant or remove titles individually, such the letters patent issued granting
the titles prince & princess to the Duke of Sussex’s children.
So, titles
and styles are quite a thing in royal families because they operate as a
pecking order atop a pecking order. Despite
the frequency with which the claim is made, the British royal family is not
wholly averse to change and one change they would be welcome would be things
going back to how they were done decades or centuries ago: In 1938, George VI
(1895–1952; King of the United Kingdom 1936-1952), being driven through Surry
in the company of a US journalist, gestured through the window towards Runnymede, telling his companion: “That’s where the troubles started”. For the institution of the monarchy, there
have since 1215 been many troubles, some quite serious but apart for a brief,
aberrant, republican interlude, one royal household or another has remained in
place, challenges dealt with as they’ve arisen.
For the royal family, the matter of “the Andrew problem” is not so much
what he’s alleged to have done (which could have been handled with the odd wry
smile and otherwise never spoken of) but the ghastliness of it becoming public
knowledge among “the common people”. The
attraction of “fixing things” by the use of letters patent is it’s quick and
(it’s hoped) will mean “the Andrew problem” doesn’t end up being discussed in
the House of Commons. That would be bad
enough but once such things start they can get out of hand and if one matter
about the royal family is being discussed in parliament, there’s no guarantee
it wouldn’t lead to other aspects being questioned. There are many things about the royal family
and their place in the UK’s constitutional apparatus which they’d prefer not be
discussed and certainly not in the House of Commons. As a tactic, the letters patent may well keep
the commoners in the Commons at bay but Mr Mountbatten Windsor’s life may
yet get worse because various institutions in the US are interested in questioning
him in relation to alleged offences committed on US soil and an extradition
request is not impossible.
