Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Curryong]

The best known Duke of Buckingham was a boyfriend of King James I, whom Charles I may or may not have had a crush on as well as a very young man after his father's death. I'm not sure the royal family would want that title floated again. (James I was buried next to his 'Steenie'.)

 

[Curryong]

The best known Duke of Buckingham was a boyfriend of King James I, whom Charles I may or may not have had a crush on as well as a very young man after his father's death. I'm not sure the royal family would want that title floated again. (James I tomb lay next to his 'Steenie's'.)

 

[MaiaMia_53]

Warwick isn't available as a Dukedom as there is an existing Earldom and it isn't done to have two people with effectively the same designation in that way.

The problem with Buckingham is that Buckingham Palace is the home of the monarch so having a Duke with that now would suggest that that Duke would live there.

I would like to see that title kept in future for the husband of a Queen Regnant. If Camilla isn't to be Queen maybe Duchess of Buckingham in her own right as that will be her home would be a good compromise and then keep the Buckingham title specifically for the Consort of the monarch.

Yes, thanks. After thinking about it, I thought it wouldn't really work because the name Buckingham is so associated with the palace now. Same for Kensington. And re Warwick, it's difficult to tell from the List of Dukedoms Wiki link that Warwick is still current as an Earldom (which should be mentioned in their chart rundown, at the least to avoid confusion).

And okay, Curryong, what you say also makes sense. Although how much of these negative historical associations do present members of the royal family know about? Oh well, I suppose if they don't know, there are plenty of historians and genealogical and peerage experts around to inform them.

As you say Curryong, James I re-created the Buckingham title for George Villiers, in 1623 (he wasn't the first to hold the original title, even though he was known as 1st Duke of Buckingham). Villiers is said to have been a boyhood friend of the future Charles 1, and a lover of James 1, who affectionately called him 'Steenie,' after angelic St. Stephen.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Warwick isn't available as a Dukedom as there is an existing Earldom and it isn't done to have two people with effectively the same designation in that way.

The problem with Buckingham is that Buckingham Palace is the home of the monarch so having a Duke with that now would suggest that that Duke would live there.

I would like to see that title kept in future for the husband of a Queen Regnant. If Camilla isn't to be Queen maybe Duchess of Buckingham in her own right as that will be her home would be a good compromise and then keep the Buckingham title specifically for the Consort of the monarch.

The Sovereign is also the Duke of Lancaster. If Camilla is not going be "known as" Queen and one would like to avoid the Princess-Consort thing, she can "be known" with the female form of one the King's subsidiary titles: HRH The Duchess of Lancaster.

That is a real Duchy with a real meaning and a long history to the Crown. I would like that better than create an operetta title as Duke of Cambridge (William has zero comma zero to do with Cambridge). When Clarence House would become Harry's residence, HRH The Duke of Clarence would be a nice sound and it has a relatively recent royal history.

 

[Lady Nimue]

ueen

The Sovereign is also the Duke of Lancaster. If Camilla is not going be "known as" Queen and one would like to avoid the Princess-Consort thing, she can "be known" with the female form of one the King's subsidiary titles: HRH The Duchess of Lancaster.

Sounds good. If I can assume, I don't think Camilla wants this pot to be continually stirred. It's petty. She will be The Queen, but to be called HRH The Duchess of Lancaster sounds classy. JMO. (Forget Princess Consort. It sounds like The Scarlet Letter. Let everyone move on, as many want.)

 

[Sunnystar]

The Sovereign is also the Duke of Lancaster. If Camilla is not going be "known as" Queen and one would like to avoid the Princess-Consort thing, she can "be known" with the female form of one the King's subsidiary titles: HRH The Duchess of Lancaster.

That is a real Duchy with a real meaning and a long history to the Crown. I would like that better than create an operetta title as Duke of Cambridge (William has zero comma zero to do with Cambridge). When Clarence House would become Harry's residence, HRH The Duke of Clarence would be a nice sound and it has a relatively recent royal history.

That's all well and good until we have another Queen Regnant. Then, what do you call her spouse, if she is the Duke of Lancaster?

I rather like the idea of calling the spouse of the monarch HRH The Duke/Duchess of Buckingham.

 

[Westfield Bakery]

She should not have the prince/princess consort like her father-in-law, Prince Philip. She should be styled as Queen Consort, like her grandmother-in-law, Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother.

Camilla should be styled as "Her Majesty The Queen".

When Charles is King, she should not be styled as H.R.H. The Princess Consort and Duchess of Cornwall.

They should be styled as Their Majesties The King and Queen.

By the way, when Charles becomes King, will Camilla still be Duchess of Cornwall, or does that automatically go to her stepdaughter-in-law, Kate?

 

[Osipi]

She should not have the prince/princess consort like her father-in-law, Prince Philip. She should be styled as Queen Consort, like her grandmother-in-law, Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother.

Camilla should be styled as "Her Majesty The Queen".

When Charles is King, she should not be styled as H.R.H. The Princess Consort and Duchess of Cornwall.

They should be styled as Their Majesties The King and Queen.

By the way, when Charles becomes King, will Camilla still be Duchess of Cornwall, or does that automatically go to her stepdaughter-in-law, Kate?

When Charles becomes King, The Duchess of Cornwall will be his daughter-in-law Catherine. William automatically becomes the Duke of Cornwall the minute his father becomes King.

Charles can then decide to create his eldest son The Prince of Wales. Then Kate would be The Princess of Wales and most likely use that as her primary title.

 

[Mbruno]

She should not have the prince/princess consort like her father-in-law, Prince Philip. She should be styled as Queen Consort, like her grandmother-in-law, Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother.

Camilla should be styled as "Her Majesty The Queen".

When Charles is King, she should not be styled as H.R.H. The Princess Consort and Duchess of Cornwall.

They should be styled as Their Majesties The King and Queen.

By the way, when Charles becomes King, will Camilla still be Duchess of Cornwall, or does that automatically go to her stepdaughter-in-law, Kate?

BTW, Prince Philip does not have the title of "Prince Consort". King George VI originally made him an HRH and the Duke of Edinburgh, but, at that time, he wasn't even a prince himself. Queen Elizabeth II (much later) made him a "prince of the United Kingdom", but not "the Prince Consort".

 

[Rudolph]

The Sovereign is also the Duke of Lancaster. If Camilla is not going be "known as" Queen and one would like to avoid the Princess-Consort thing, she can "be known" with the female form of one the King's subsidiary titles: HRH The Duchess of Lancaster.

That is a real Duchy with a real meaning and a long history to the Crown. I would like that better than create an operetta title as Duke of Cambridge (William has zero comma zero to do with Cambridge). When Clarence House would become Harry's residence, HRH The Duke of Clarence would be a nice sound and it has a relatively recent royal history.

Operetta? Cambridge has been created 4 or 5 times as a dukedom including for the future King George II. Strong royal ties.

Hereditary dukedoms under UK law are a non-corporeal form of property. Nothing to do with having a physical duchy attached to it.

 

[Anfisa]

Is it possible for a prince/princess to renounce their royal titles? E.g. if Prince Harry wanted to just become Harry Windsor, how would he go about doing it?

 

[Lumutqueen]

Is it possible for a prince/princess to renounce their royal titles? E.g. if Prince Harry wanted to just become Harry Windsor, how would he go about doing it?

It is possible, I imagine an act of parliament would have be drawn up stripping them and heirs if necessary of their titles and position. Henry would then become Henry Mountbatten-Windsor I assume. It would be quite a lengthy process I would have thought.

 

[Molly2101]

Is it possible for a prince/princess to renounce their royal titles? E.g. if Prince Harry wanted to just become Harry Windsor, how would he go about doing it?

They can renounce their styles/not use them just as Louise and James are doing. They are Their Royal Highnesses Princess Louise and Prince James of Wessex but are not using them. Harry could, if he really wanted, drop the HRH.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Louise and James are actually different as the Queen's will has been made known and that will is that they aren't actually HRHs at all. (This topic comes up for discussion every so often so I wrote to BP and asked them directly and that was the answer I was given - that The Queen's will is all that is needed which is what has happened in this case. It was also all that was needed for William to be known officially as the Duke of Cambridge - the LPs weren't issued until May 2011 but his official title was used from 29th April).

For Harry he can do one of two things - simply announce that he no longer wishes to be known as Prince Henry and ask the public to respect his request but that wouldn't be official. He could ask parliament to pass the necessary legislation for himself and/or his children. Parliament would probably say 'too much of a waste of our time' given the fact that he is so low in the line of succession (if it was William it would be a different matter as he is 2nd in line and the heir apparent to the heir apparent) but Harry is 5th.

The easiest way for Harry to remove himself and his children from the line of succession would be for him to marry without have HM's consent - then it is automatic. If he didn't want to remove his children's rights he could simply convert to Roman Catholicism and he is out but his children remain in. In those cases however he would still be HRH Prince Henry of Wales and his wife HRH Princess Henry of Wales while the children would be Lord and Lady (following the example of Prince Michael) until such time as Charles is King when they would be HRH Prince/Princess xxxx/yyyy - but of nothing as Harry wouldn't have a title in his own right and if he does marry without consent I can't see HM giving him a title although Charles may do so - but possibly only a life peerage and probably only an Earldom or even a Viscountcy.

The next question is 'why would he want to give it up'? It doesn't compel him to do anything. He has no real responsibilities unless he wants to do so. He doesn't get an income as a result of having those styles. He is still a commoner, could stand for election for the House of Commons, could get a real job if he wanted to do so (but having been unemployed now for nearly two years many employers would probably baulk at the idea of employing someone who walked out of a job with no other job lined up other than the occasional appearance).

 

[RoyalHighness 2002]

Wait, lets say the Queen dies in a couple of years, and for some random reason Louise wants to start using her title and style of HRH and princess as a grandchild of the monarch. Does that mean she cant do that.

 

[Osipi]

I recently read something and find it a bit puzzling. Perhaps someone could tell me if this is correct.

Some heredity peers are ranked higher than others is a given but withing the hereditary titles such as duke, some dukes are ranked higher than other dukes. Take for instance, Charles Spencer, 9th Earl Spencer is ranked higher than Hugh Grosvenor, 7th Duke of Westminster. The "of" is the difference. This does not apply to royal dukes I'm presuming.

Methinks that in order to really understand the ins and outs of British titles and styles, I should have started learning as an infant.

 

[Spheno]

I recently read something and find it a bit puzzling. Perhaps someone could tell me if this is correct.

Some heredity peers are ranked higher than others is a given but withing the hereditary titles such as duke, some dukes are ranked higher than other dukes. Take for instance, Charles Spencer, 9th Earl Spencer is ranked higher than Hugh Grosvenor, 7th Duke of Westminster. The "of" is the difference. This does not apply to royal dukes I'm presuming.

Methinks that in order to really understand the ins and outs of British titles and styles, I should have started learning as an infant.

All dukes are ranked higher than any earl.

 

[Osipi]

Ack!

Big faux pas on my part finding examples. Lets try again. Charles Spencer, 9th Earl Spencer and Thomas Coke, 8th Earl of Leicester.

Definitely a double dosage of caffeine kind of day here.

 

[Spheno]

Ack!

Big faux pas on my part finding examples. Lets try again. Charles Spencer, 9th Earl Spencer and Thomas Coke, 8th Earl of Leicester.

Definitely a double dosage of caffeine kind of day here.

Spencer is ranked higher. He is an earl in the peerage of the of Great Britain. Leicester is an earl in the peerage of of the United Kingdom.

 

[Osipi]

Thanks Spheno. Therefore the "of" designation makes no difference. That's what I wanted to know.

 

[Curryong]

Basically peerages are ranked by seniority, with the English ones created pre 1801 ranked above Scottish Peerages, Irish peerages and those of Great Britain/UK.
Scroll down to Peerages
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_precedence_in_the_United_Kingdom

 

[Ish]

Ack!

Big faux pas on my part finding examples. Lets try again. Charles Spencer, 9th Earl Spencer and Thomas Coke, 8th Earl of Leicester.

Definitely a double dosage of caffeine kind of day here.

Not a faux pas, just a misunderstanding.

The precedence of peers is determined in a few ways:

1. Order of Rank; i.e. a Duke is always higher than an Earl. Ranking goes:
   1. Dukes
   2. Marquesses
   3. Earls
   4. Viscounts
   5. Barons
   6. Baronets
2. Order of Peerage; a Duke in the Peerage of England is higher than one in the Peerage of Scotland. Ranking goes:
   1. England (before 1707)
   2. Scotland (before 1707)
   3. Ireland (before 1801)
   4. Great Britain (between 1707 and 1801)
   5. United Kingdom (since 1801)
3. Order of Creation within a Peerage: a Duke created today is higher than a Duke created tomorrow

The exception within Dukedoms is that all Royal Dukes are higher than all non-royal Dukes, with the Duke of Cornwall/Duke of Rothesay having the highest precedence. Likewise, Edward takes his precedence from being a royal, not an Earl.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Wait, lets say the Queen dies in a couple of years, and for some random reason Louise wants to start using her title and style of HRH and princess as a grandchild of the monarch. Does that mean she cant do that.

No - the 'Queen's Will' covers all monarchs not just QEII.

It is no difference to a LP. Any LP issued by QEII will still operate under Charles and William etc.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Not a faux pas, just a misunderstanding.

The precedence of peers is determined in a few ways:

1. Order of Rank; i.e. a Duke is always higher than an Earl. Ranking goes:
   1. Dukes
   2. Marquesses
   3. Earls
   4. Viscounts
   5. Barons
   6. Baronets
2. Order of Peerage; a Duke in the Peerage of England is higher than one in the Peerage of Scotland. Ranking goes:
   1. England (before 1707)
   2. Scotland (before 1707)
   3. Ireland (before 1801)
   4. Great Britain (between 1707 and 1801)
   5. United Kingdom (since 1801)
3. Order of Creation within a Peerage: a Duke created today is higher than a Duke created tomorrow

The exception within Dukedoms is that all Royal Dukes are higher than all non-royal Dukes, with the Duke of Cornwall/Duke of Rothesay having the highest precedence. Likewise, Edward takes his precedence from being a royal, not an Earl.

It should be noted that the current Dukes of Gloucester and Kent take precedence as 'royals' but when the current holder dies the successor will take their precedence based on the date of creation of the title by George V for his sons (March 28th, 1928 for Gloucester and 12th October, 1934 for Kent). That will see them drop to the lowest ranked amongst the dukes.

 

[Ish]

No - the 'Queen's Will' covers all monarchs not just QEII.



It is no difference to a LP. Any LP issued by QEII will still operate under Charles and William etc.

But what if during the reign of Charles, it is his will that the children of the new Duke of Edinburgh use their royal titles?

I will always suspect that the way the Wessex children's titles have been addressed was done with deliberate vagueness on the issue of whether they hold royal titles and just do not use them, or not. So that if a time comes when their titles may change there's a loophole, so to speak.

It should be noted that the current Dukes of Gloucester and Kent take precedence as 'royals' but when the current holder dies the successor will take their precedence based on the date of creation of the title by George V for his sons (March 28th, 1928 for Gloucester and 12th October, 1934 for Kent). That will see them drop to the lowest ranked amongst the dukes.

True - at that time, the Dukedoms will cease to be royal.

 

[Iluvbertie]

But what if during the reign of Charles, it is his will that the children of the new Duke of Edinburgh use their royal titles?

He would have to issue new LPs or let it be known that the King's will is that they use them.

As the reports are that he wants a smaller royal family I doubt very much that he will want that to happen at all but would rather that Beatrice and Eugenie voluntarily ask to give up their HRHs. I can actually see him issuing new LPs to further restrict HRHs rather than having any extension to those who have never used it.

I will always suspect that the way the Wessex children's titles have been addressed was done with deliberate vagueness on the issue of whether they hold royal titles and just do not use them, or not. So that if a time comes when their titles may change there's a loophole, so to speak.

The letter I received back from BP when I asked was very clear - they are definitely not HRH and that is an end of it. It was made clear to me that there is no possibility of them taking them up at some later point as The Queen's Will has been made known on the issue and that is an end of it - no HRHs for Louise and James and thus they are not a Prince or Princess - now or in the future.

 

[Lumutqueen]

So just to clarify for my own knowledge, "The Queens Will" has actually stripped Louise and James of their HRHs? For me personally that doesn't seem right.

 

[Iluvbertie]

That is what I was told when I wrote and asked BP. All that is required for a person to gain or lose a title within the royal family is for The Queen's Will to be made known and the Queen has done that with regard to Louise and James.

I believe that she didn't want to actually issue new LPs to stop them as to do that would have meant stripping HRHs from her cousins and Beatrice and Eugenie but that in time the intention is that only the children of the heir will have HRH. That wasn't in the letter but my interpretation of the reply I received.

The letter said that Louise and James are not HRHs as The Queen's Will, that they aren't holders of that styling, has been made known via the announcement made on Edward's wedding day.

The letter is as follows:

Dear xxxxx (sorry not making public my name)

Thank you for your request for clarification about the question of the styling of the children of HRH The Earl of Wessex.

You are correct in your interpretation of the announcement made in 1999.

The Queen's Will was made known on HRH The Earl of Wessex's wedding day and as such none of his children do now, nor will in the future, have the style of HRH Prince or Princess. As Her Majesty is the fount of all honours all that is needed for a style to be given or taken, except for a substantive peerage, is that Her Majesty's Will is made known.

Thank you for your interest in this subject.

Blah Blah Blah (I had three other questions on behalf of a student doing a major research project for school which I also added and they were answered as well).

 

[JSH]

I agree with Lumutqueen. It is one thing for Louise and James to not use royal titles. To not have them at all is another thing altogether and not at all right. The wording of the announcement at the time of Edward's marriage clearly said that it was the Queen's will that his children not use royal titles. It did not say that they don't have them. So this letter from BP is going further than the announcement did IMO.

 

[Iluvbertie]

This letter is actually confirming what is meant by 'The Queen's Will'.

Many people don't understand that 'The Queen's Will' has the same official status as say Letters Patent.

The wording in 1999 was The Queen's Will not LPs but in reality it is the same thing.