Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Royal Fan]

I Wish the Queens Husband wouldve been made Prince Consort

 

[AnnEliza]

The eldest son and heir of an earl or viscount is given one of his father's lesser titles as a courtesy, if one exists; his younger sons are given the title The Honourable. Daughters of earls are given the title Lady, while daughters of viscounts and all the children of barons are given the title The Honourable.

Was there a time when only the eldest daughter of an earl was given the title Lady, and younger daughters were The Honourable? I read that in a period novel set 200 years ago, that one of the characters was the daughter of an earl but called The Honourable First Name, etc., but her eldest sister was Lady First Name. Or perhaps that was an error by the author?

 

[Iluvbertie]

I Wish the Queens Husband wouldve been made Prince Consort

You have to convince him of that as it has been reported a number of times that it is Philip that has refused that title each time the Queen has offered it - 1952 being the first and 2007 the most recent time that it was reported that she had offered to do so and he had refused that title.

 

[AnnEliza]

You have to convince him of that as it has been reported a number of times that it is Philip that has refused that title each time the Queen has offered it - 1952 being the first and 2007 the most recent time that it was reported that she had offered to do so and he had refused that title.

What is the difference between his being Prince Consort and the title he has now? Was it Prince Albert who was Prince Consort -- how did that make a difference? (Not arguing, I'm asking for information.)

 

[Lumutqueen]

What is the difference between his being Prince Consort and the title he has now? Was it Prince Albert who was Prince Consort -- how did that make a difference? (Not arguing, I'm asking for information.)

Well technically he is the Prince Consort, being wife of the Queen Regnant. He has just not chosen to use it.
Prince consort - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[HM Queen Catherine]

Was there a time when only the eldest daughter of an earl was given the title Lady, and younger daughters were The Honourable? I read that in a period novel set 200 years ago, that one of the characters was the daughter of an earl but called The Honourable First Name, etc., but her eldest sister was Lady First Name. Or perhaps that was an error by the author?

I would certainly say "author error" on this. If the novel was only set 200 years ago, you're talking circa 1800-1820, and I don't believe there has been any change to British courtesy titles during that time, or indeed, before then.

All daughters of Earls are "(The) Lady".

As for example, the daughters of Francis Greville, 1st Earl of Warwick (4th Creation), who had five: Louisa, Frances, Charlotte, Isabella and Anne. All of them carried the courtesy title of Lady as the daughters of an earl from the moment Francis Greville was created 1st Earl Brooke of Warwick Castle, in 1746. He became Earl of Warwick in 1759. His eldest daughters, Louisa and Charlotte were "The Honourable" from birth (as daughters of a Baron), but that title changed while they were still toddlers.

Lady Louisa married William Churchill in 1770, who was from an impeccable family but without a courtesy title (he was plain Mr. William Churchill), and after her marriage she was known as Lady Louisa Churchill.

Lady Frances married Sir Henry Harpur in 1764, who was a baronet, but Frances still retained higher rank as an earl's daughter, so she was Lady Frances Harpur after her marriage.

Lady Charlotte married John Stewart, Viscount Garlies, becoming Viscountess Garlies by her husband's courtesy title. Unfortunately, she died before he became the 7th Earl of Galloway in 1773.

Lady Isabella and Lady Anne Greville both died relatively young, and were never married.

There are however, a couple of caveats to the courtesy usage.

If, for example, the heir to an earldom lives to adulthood and fathers children (we'll say 2 sons and 3 daughters in this example), but he dies before his father.. meaning the eldest grandson of the earl would inherit the title instead of the original son and heir.

In this case, it has been known for the daughters of the deceased heir to be granted the courtesy title of "Lady", which they would have been entitled to had their father lived. It's called "granting the precedence of an earl's daughter". So they become "Lady" on the succession of their brother, rather than remaining "The Honourable". The same would apply to their brother, although he may be an Honourable already, in which case his courtesy would not change.

This has also has been known to happen with more distant heirs, who may not have titles of their own prior to succeeding. In such cases, the brother(s) and sister(s) of the newly minted earl may be granted precedence and allowed to use "The Honourable" for a brother, and "Lady" for a sister, as the siblings of the titleholder.

But neither of these scenarios always apply. I believe someone has to petition the sovereign and receive formal recognition for it to be allowed.

 

[jemagre]

I don't think this will happen.

I can see Beatrice becoming HRH Princess Beatrice of York, Mrs. David Clark....similiar to her aunt's title during her first marriage. The only way she will become a Duchess, Lady or whatever is if she marries someone who currently holds a title.

I can't see the Queen, or Charles or William giving any husband of Zara, Beatrice, Eugenie or Louise an additional title.

I wonder though if they would want titles for their husbands. The Queen after all did offer those husbands ( Anne and Alexandra) titles but they were refused. As for Charles, William, or even Harry (if he gets it) I would think maybe not. Does anyone think that the girls would want to even keep their princess titles or have their husbands have titles? I don't know enough about them to guess.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Thanks for the clarification! I knew Princess of Wales was her most senior title, and she held the other titles that Prince Charles holds. I just guessed since she has several titles by virtue of marriage, she would not hold "The Princess Charles" as a title, as that would be the title she would receive upon marriage had Charles had no other titles (ie. Princess Michael). But that make total sense, as he is "The Prince Charles", so she, as well as being The Princess of Wales, was also The Princess Charles!!.

Exactly - she took all his titles.

Currently only Princess Micheal uses that form but there are a number who have it - Camilla, (The Princess Charles), Sophie (The Princess Edward), Birgitte (Princess Richard of Gloucester) and Katherine (Princess Edward of Kent). These ladies use other titles but they also have these ones.

 

[PrincessKaimi]

I've read nearly every post on this thread, and I'm confused. First, it seems clear that not everyone agrees on everything, so maybe there are no hard and fast answers.

But starting with my latest confusion first: I thought a Princess became Princess [His Name] only when he had no other titles to bestow. So Princess Michael uses that form, but it is inappropriate for Princess Camilla or Princess Sophie.

Next, it seems that the Sovereign can rearrange several aspects of styles and titles, such as renaming Houses or bestowing titles such as Prince and styles such as HRH. Is this correct?

Finally, while it has been generally the case in the past that dead people's titles can't change, aren't a lot of things in flux in the last 100 years in various monarchies? If a Sovereign were to posthumously bestow a title, what would stop him from so doing? Unless the Prime Minister were to advise otherwise, can't the Sovereign do as he wishes with titles and styles?

Thanks in advance for any help on these questions.

 

[Rebafan81]

Is the BRF the only one with this kind of royal styling? Example: Mette-Marit wasn't born a Princes but she isn't called Princess Haakon, she is styled Crown Princess Mette-Marit, why is the that? Why is the BRF different?

 

[Warren]

You are correct in that a woman becomes known as Princess [husband's first name] on marriage if he has no title apart from his royal style, the best example being Princess Michael of Kent.
However, those with memories long enough will recall the marriage of Prince Richard of Gloucester to Birgitte van Deurs when she became Princess Richard of Gloucester.
When Prince Richard's father died in 1974 he inherited the Dukedom and became The Duke of Gloucester, Earl of Ulster and Baron Culloden. He did not cease to be Prince Richard but assumed the senior royal ducal title.

In the same manner, Prince Charles became Duke of Cornwall etc (and Duke of Rothesay etc in Scotland) on his mother's accession, and Prince of Wales in 1958. His senior royal title is Prince of Wales and that is the title most commonly used. He remains The Prince Charles and Duke of Cornwall and Earl of Chester and Duke of Rothesay and Earl of Carrick, etc etc.

In other words, royal titles and styles aren't lost as others are added, they are cumulative. As the wives assume the feminine form of their husband's styles and titles, Camilla became The Princess Charles and Duchess of Cornwall and Countess of Chester and Duchess of Rothesay and Countess of Carrick and Princess of Wales etc etc on her marriage. If the Duke of Edinburgh predeceases the Queen, Charles, as the eldest son, will inherit the Dukedom of Edinburgh and it will be aded to his, and to his wife's, string of titles. Although having become Duke of Cornwall and Edinburgh, he would still be referred to by his senior title of Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall would remain just that or could possibly be known as the Duchess of Cornwall and Edinburgh.

Only when Queen Elizabeth dies will Charles's myriad titles vanish ("revert to the Crown" or pass to his eldest son) to be replaced by "King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" etc with a royal dukedom, that of Lancaster, automatically part of his new package (though in this specific case, it will not be shared with his wife).

As the Sovereign is the Fount of Honour, he or she can more or less act as he or she pleases in regard to royal styles and titles and other honorifics. If pressed, resort can be made to the more formal Letters Patent (eg, changing the name of the Royal House, or abolishing or reducing or expanding the limitation on the right to the styles of 'Highness' or 'Royal Highness'.

Deceased persons are posthumously honoured with awards and decorations (eg military personnel, police, ordinary citizens) so there would be nothing to prevent the Sovereign, as the Fount of Honour, expressing their pleasure in conferring a posthumous style (eg Royal Highness) or title on a deceased royal.

 

[Lumutqueen]

But starting with my latest confusion first: I thought a Princess became Princess [His Name] only when he had no other titles to bestow. So Princess Michael uses that form, but it is inappropriate for Princess Camilla or Princess Sophie.

I'm confused as to what you are asking, Camilla is officially Her Royal Highness The Princess Charles Philip Arthur George, Princess of Wales and Countess of Chester, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay, Countess of Carrick, Baroness of Renfrew, Lady of the Isles, Princess of Scotland. She is known as The Duchess of Cornwall, due to Diana attachment to the other title.

Sophie is Her Royal Highness The Princess Edward Antony Richard Louis, Countess of Wessex, Viscountess Severn, Dame Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order, Dame of Justice of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem. She is known as The Countess of Wessex on a day to day basis.

Marie-Christine is Her Royal Highness Princess Michael George Charles Franklin of Kent.

Next, it seems that the Sovereign can rearrange several aspects of styles and titles, such as renaming Houses or bestowing titles such as Prince and styles such as HRH. Is this correct?

Again i'm confused again as to what you mean, can you provide an example?

Finally, while it has been generally the case in the past that dead people's titles can't change, aren't a lot of things in flux in the last 100 years in various monarchies? If a Sovereign were to posthumously bestow a title, what would stop him from so doing? Unless the Prime Minister were to advise otherwise, can't the Sovereign do as he wishes with titles and styles?

I don't see why a sovereign would give a title to a dead royal or spouse, the monarch is the fount of honour she/he may bestow any title she wishes on a person.

Is the BRF the only one with this kind of royal styling? Example: Mette-Marit wasn't born a Princes but she isn't called Princess Haakon, she is styled Crown Princess Mette-Marit, why is the that? Why is the BRF different?

I believe so, they are this way because that's how they have always been.

I must add, that these questions don't have a lot to do with Diana.

 

[Warren]

Is the BRF the only one with this kind of royal styling? Example: Mette-Marit wasn't born a Princes but she isn't called Princess Haakon, she is styled Crown Princess Mette-Marit, why is the that? Why is the BRF different?

No, there are examples from various places: Princess Georg of Hanover, Princess Charles of Belgium, Princess Alexandre of Belgium, Princess Louis Napoléon, Princess Aage of Denmark, Princess Viggo of Denmark, Princess Michel of France, Crown Princess Pavlos of Greece, Princess Karl of Hesse, Princess Charles-Louis d'Arenberg, Princess Heinrich (Henry) of Prussia, Princess Friedrich Karl of Prussia, Princess Henry of Battenberg, Princess Christian of Schleswig-Holstein, Grand Duchess Serge of Russia, etc etc.

Britain doesn't use the title of 'Crown Prince' therefore there can't be a 'Crown Princess'. Instead there is a Prince and [nominally] Princess of Wales just as Spain currently has a Prince and Princess of the Asturias and The Netherlands a Prince of Orange (his wife does not share this title).

 

[Lumutqueen]

Are there any present examples of the alternate naming system, other than the BRF?
Thank you for the information Warren.

 

[PrincessKaimi]

Thank you for the answers to my questions. It only makes sense that the Sovereign, as Fount of Honour, can bestow titles on whomever he/she pleases (dead or living), whether or not the rest of us seeing any reason why or why not (personally, I can see plenty of reasons why; I suspect that Sovereigns can have their own personal belief systems as well). The upshot is that a Sovereign can do as they please in this area, even if it is unusual?

When I asked about changing titles and houses (and I think I'm getting it now), after reading this thread, I was thinking about the switch to the House of Windsor, Queen Elizabeth's decision to have her children be House of Windsor (as opposed to Prince Philip's house) and the removal of the HRH from Diana, Princess of Wales. I am assuming that the monarch can only change their own house names, not those of others (am I getting it? wouldn't make sense otherwise).

Now another question has arisen. Since Queen Elizabeth II is attempting to "downsize" the monarchy (at least in terms of the civil list), is being on the civil list the Queen's choice? New titles granted not on the civil list would seem to be purely honorific (does she do that much?)

And I'm feeling sad for the children of Princess Anne. What titles would they have been entitled to? Would the Queen have given the titles (where does she get them - are there unused titles lying around or does she invent them?) There's virtually nothing on wikipedia about Anne's relationship with her children (unlike the other royals of her generation, who have more robust biographies).

 

[Iluvbertie]

Now another question has arisen. Since Queen Elizabeth II is attempting to "downsize" the monarchy (at least in terms of the civil list), is being on the civil list the Queen's choice? New titles granted not on the civil list would seem to be purely honorific (does she do that much?)

The Queen made the decision to reduce the Civil List personnel following the events of 1992 - the Annus Horribilis.

The only ones who receive anything from the Civil List now are the Queen and Philip. At the time there was also the Queen Mum and other relatives but the Queen has repaid all monies paid to the other royals except for herself, Philip and the Queen Mum when alive since 1992/3.

No one has been added since then and probably never will be.

And I'm feeling sad for the children of Princess Anne. What titles would they have been entitled to?

Through Anne - none - under the 1917 Letters Patent as the grandchildren of a monarch through a girl they are not entitled to any titles. The only reason that Princess Mary's children and Princess Margaret's children had titles was that their husbands had titles. Not through their mothers. Even the Queen, without special LPs couldn't automatically give titles to Charles and Anne when they were born. Had new LPs not been issued by George VI shortly before Charles was born he would have been born with the title of Earl of Merioneth by courtesy from his father. A girl can't pass on titles unless she is the monarch - only a boy can.

Would the Queen have given the titles (where does she get them - are there unused titles lying around or does she invent them?) There's virtually nothing on wikipedia about Anne's relationship with her children (unlike the other royals of her generation, who have more robust biographies).

The Queen reportedly offered Mark Philips an Earldom on marriage but he and Anne decided against it. There was also an offer of a title for Peter at birth but again Anne and Mark decided against it.

Don't feel sorry for Anne's children. Without titles they have been able to have the best of both worlds - enormous wealth and privilege without the responsibility and expectation of royal duties. They have been able to pursue their own interests in life rather than the more limiting interests available to William and Harry.

 

[PrincessKaimi]

Okay, I see the reason not to feel sorry for Princess Anne's children. I guess I'm not getting how all these people can be so fantastically wealthy - but then, I do not know the properties and investments their grandparents/parents made (I find it fascinating, however).

If Anne and Mr. Philips decided to turn down the title, then it was a done deal at that point - but so fascinating to ponder why. Now I see Anne as a more protective mother than before. If one could opt out of all that responsibility and still have all the power and wealth, it seems reasonable to do so.

I had no idea that it was only Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip who were on the list.

Of course, the lack of equality in the system, its inherent sexism, baffles me. I do understand the history of it, but in this day and age, I also understand why some would be against the system as long as it remains Salic/patrilineal. Still, it would lose so much of its fascination if it were not so steeped in history.

It's only been about 500 years since women were allowed to sit uncontested on the throne of England, right?

From what I've read here so far, most of the continental nations of Europe follow a similar pattern (rather different, traditionally, in Hawaii). Are there any European nations who have allowed titles to pass on the female line? (I know that's a real newbie question, I'll keep reading threads to see if I can find the answer).

 

[Kataryn]

Are there any European nations who have allowed titles to pass on the female line? (I know that's a real newbie question, I'll keep reading threads to see if I can find the answer).

It was a much more open system in the Middle Ages because so many children died then young and young male adults had a dangerous life, so a surviving daughter as heiress was much more common. Thus the medieval titles often can be inherited by a daughter if there is no son.

From the 1500s children survival rates became much better, so women as heiresses were not as necessary any longer (I omit several other aspects like the changing role of the church). But when eg. the last of the Habsburgs, emperor Charles VI. only had daughters, he had several domains where female sucession was possible and others where it was uncommon. So he bartered with all other monarchs in Europe so that these crowned heads accepted a contract called the "Pragmatic Sanction" which allowed Charles' eldest daughter Maria Theresia to inherit and for her husband Francis Stephan of Lorraine to become emperor. It took some time after his death for the new House of Habsburg-Lorraine to secure the position but it worked in the end.

Or think of Imperial Russia, where even a Tsar's widow could take over the throne and reign in her own right (CatherineI. and II.). Spain had two Isabellas as queen regnants... It is not soooo uncommon.

 

[MAfan]

A girl can't pass on titles unless she is the monarch - only a boy can.

This is the general rule; but it's possible a special reminder contained in the Letters Patent, which allowes women to succeed and transmit the title to their descendants in case of lack of male heirs; i.e. the titles of Earl Mountbatten of Burma, Duke of Marlborough, Baron Ravensdale.

 

[Rex Imperator]

ok, so now i think my question has changed. why do they use their duke and duchess or count and countess titles over their prince and princess ones?

Royal duke's don't give up their princely titles, however a dukedom is such a valuable sustantive title that monarchs bestow them on their own children (sons) usually at the time of their marriage. A royal duke would be styled HRH The Duke of York. He is understood to be a prince of the realm since he (or his wife by courtesy) is styled royal highness. A non-royal duke would be His Grace The Duke of Wellington.
Queen Victoria was very fond of giving honors on her birthday May 24th. Her eldest grandson, Prince Albert Victor was granted a dukedom (Duke of Clarence and Avondale) even though he was not yet married mainly because he was the eldest son of the Prince of Wales, the future Edward VII.

What is the difference between his being Prince Consort and the title he has now? Was it Prince Albert who was Prince Consort -- how did that make a difference? (Not arguing, I'm asking for information.)

Albert was created Prince Consort mainly to give him greater precedence at foreign state functions. Even though he was married to the reigning British monarch, there were others that outranked him in their own right. This was done as a personal honor to Albert but to also correct that embarrassing and awkward situation abroad.

 

[Iluvbertie]

This is the general rule; but it's possible a special reminder contained in the Letters Patent, which allowes women to succeed and transmit the title to their descendants in case of lack of male heirs; i.e. the titles of Earl Mountbatten of Burma, Duke of Marlborough, Baron Ravensdale.

However had you read fully the entire post that contained that comment you would have realised that I was referring to the children of the monarch under the 1917 LPs - and under those LPs only sons pass on titles not daughters.

 

[AnalogKid]

Peerage succession question

I know that most of the peerage titles in the UK can only be inherited by males, however does that work from one generation directly to the next or can a generation be skipped?

For example, if say Princess Beatrice had a son in the future, could Prince Andrew's Duke of York title directly pass to his grandson, or does the fact that it has to pass through a woman (even if the woman herself doesn't inherit it) invalidate it?

I assume the rules would be the same for the various Earls, Viscounts, etc?

 

[Iluvbertie]

No - even if Beatrice has a son that son won't be eligible to be Duke of York as only heirs born of a male heir can inherit.
Of course, if the LPs allowed female inheritance then the situation would be different.

The current Duke of York LPs, like Edinburgh and Wessex allow 'male heirs of the body' which means sons and their sons but not through the daughters at all. Andrew's title will become extinct on his death, unless he marries again and has a son to inherit the title. The Edinburgh title will go to Charles first and then it will depend on what title Charles holds at the time. The Wessex title will pass to James and then to his son, but if James has no son then it will become extinct as it can't pass to Louise and her descendents.

Some titles have passed to nephews for instance due to no direct heir and some titles have become extinct - daughters but not sons.

 

[Royal_Eagle]

Is there the chance that future LPs issued would have gender neutral remainders on who may inherit the titles? Maybe the Queen might not do that, but might future King Charles III/George VI do that? I can see the future King William V doing that though, but not sure about the others?

 

[Iluvbertie]

Assuming any more heriditary peerages are granted then yes it would be possible to have gender neutral remainders.
It is also possible that Parliament could pass legislation affecting all peerages to make the succession gender neutral.

 

[Bella]

Harry's title, like Beatrice and Eugenie's, come from the fact that they are male line grandchildren of a monarch, as such the title can be given to a spouse (only in Harry's case) but not the children.

I didn't know this. I thought that P. Harry's children would also be HRH Prince or Princess. Wouldn't his children be eligible (once Charles was king) as the grandchildren of the Sovereign? I know any children of Pss B & E would not be titled (unless their father is titled) as they are women, but I was sure Harry's children would be titled.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Under the 1917 LPs during the present reign the children of Harry won't be HRH Prince/Princess (nor will the children of William except his eldest son). They will automatically rise to that status when Charles becomes King.

However, if Charles predeceases his mother then the possibility exists that Harry's children may never become HRH.

It is also possible that the Queen could issue new LPs giving them the HRH style from birth (as happened in 1948 when she was expecting Charles as otherwise he would have been born Lord Charles Mountbatten and use the courtesy title of Earl of Merioneth - his father's second title and Anne would have been born as Lady Anne Mountbatten).

 

[AnalogKid]

Something I'm wondering about. What exactly is the rules for The Prince of Wales title. Is it given specifically to the eldest son without any other consideration, or the heir apparent whoever that may be?

Hypothetical situation: Imagine for a moment that back in the '70s, Prince Charles falls in love with a catholic woman who doesn't intend to convert. He makes it clear that if he's refused permission to marry her under the RMA, he'll follow the example set by his great-uncle and renounce his right to the throne, essentially choosing love over dynastic burden. So assent is reluctantly given and Charles is eliminated from the succession upon marriage. Does he keep the Prince of Wales title, or does it then get conferred onto the teenage Andrew, the new heir to the throne? Or would there just be no Prince of Wales at all?

Also as the Dukes of Cornwall and Rothesay titles are supposed to belong to the heir apparent, would they get transferred to Andrew, or would they stay with Charles and eventually cease to become royal dukedoms (assuming Charles and his wife continue the line far enough) as Kent and Gloucester soon will?

Yes, would never have happened I know. I'm just curious as to how it would work.

 

[Lumutqueen]

He wouldn't keep it, because he is no longer heir apparant. As to whether Andrew is conferred is a different matter. Andrew would be the heir apparant, and could not be displaced so he should in theory be the new Prince of Wales. However like the Duke of Windsor title, it might be a little tainted.

 

[wbenson]

I'm not sure that there's a way for him to relinquish the title, though. The letters patent creating him Prince of Wales said that the "name, style, title, dignity, and honour" of the principality was his "to hold to him and his heirs, Kings of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of [the Queen's] other realms and territories, heads of the Commonwealth forever." I suppose there's a case that the "Kings of the United Kingdom", etc. part is a dependent clause that could modify the "forever" enough to nullify it if it ever became clear that he and his heirs would not ever reign, but the only way to be sure would be through an act of Parliament.