Questions about British Styles and Titles

[HRH Kimetha]

Originally Posted by wbenson

The Queen is also not a commoner. Viscount Linley is considered a commoner (and until 1999, could vote in elections, run for a seat in the House of Commons), as his title is a courtesy title, not a substantive title.

What happened in 1999 that he could not vote in the elections?

I thought that his title was because he was a royal. Why is a courtesy title? Because his father was a commoner when he married Margaret?

[wbenson]

Originally Posted by HRH Kimetha

What happened in 1999 that he could not vote in the elections?

I thought that his title was because he was a royal. Why is a courtesy title? Because his father was a commoner when he married Margaret?

Sorry, I wasn't very clear. He could vote in elections before 1999, and can also vote in elections after 1999. He wasn't a peer before 1999, when it became possible for many peers to vote.

He is able to use the title of "Viscount Linley" as he is the eldest son of the Earl of Snowdon, who is also Viscount Linley. Traditional practice is for the heir to the title to use the second-highest title the current titleholder holds. The heir to the heir would use a 3rd highest title, if one existed. (Sometimes the heir doesn't use the second-highest title of their father (or in rare cases, mother) if the titles are similar (Earl of X and Viscount X, for instance, so that there is no confusion when referring to Lord X). What title is used is often a matter of family tradition.

The son of the Duke of Kent uses the title "Earl of St. Andrews", and the Earl of St. Andrews' son is "Lord Downpatrick" The son of the Duke of Gloucester uses the title "Earl of Ulster." If the Earl of Ulster ever has a son, he will be "Lord Culloden." A son that is a Prince, however, is "Prince Y of X." This is why Prince Charles was "Prince Charles of Edinburgh" after birth, and not "Earl of Merioneth", which is a subsidiary title of Prince Philip. As the Earl of Snowdon only holds one other title (Viscount Linley), Viscount Linley's son is styled as the son of a Viscount ("The Honourable").

The Earl of Snowdon was granted his title a year or so after marrying Princess Margaret, as he was indeed a commoner. Incidentally, he was given a life Barony in 1999 so that he could retain his seat in the House of Lords after Hereditary Peers (all but 90 or so) were excluded from the House.

[Missyjojo88]

Would someone like Lady Helen Windsor be considered a commoner? What exactly is the benefit of being a Lady and a Lord?

[wbenson]

Lady Helen Windsor would be a commoner. Her style of "Lady" comes from being the daughter of a Duke. "Lord" and "Lady" can be used in 2 ways.

The younger sons of Dukes and Marquesses use the style "Lord Firstname Surname." Their wives are styled "Lady", as are all daughters of Dukes, Marquesses, and Earls.

Also, many peers beneath the rank of Duke style themselves "Lord X" (Lord Mountbatten). Barons use it the most frequently. Their wives and peeresses in their own right (Baroness Thatcher, Countess Mountbatten) are also styled "Lady X."

The wife of a Knight is also styled "Lady Surname."

[HRH Kimetha]

Originally Posted by wbenson

Sorry, I wasn't very clear... He is able to use the title of "Viscount Linley"...

Thanks for your wonderful explanation and clarity. It cleared up a lot of confusion.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Henri M.

But we have seen more of these examples (The Empress Friedrich, Princess Andrew of Greece, Princess Michael of Kent)

Empress Friedrich was more a nick than Victorias official name. She was always Her Majesty, the Empress, later she was informally styled as Her Majesty The Dowager Empress or Her Majesty The Empress Mother or The Empress Friedrich but her official title was still The Empress, so the Friedrich part was added to end confusion.

It has to do that the title of Emperor in Germany was not "Emperor of Germany" but "German Emperor" for the king of Prussia in his position of president of the federation of German countries which had all their own ruler and crowned souverain. So Victoria was HM The German Empress and The Queen of Prussia.

[branchg]

A woman who marries a prince of the UK shares his rank and title as "Princess Husband's Christian Name" and holds the qualification of Her Royal Highness.

If granted titles in the peerage, the wife is styled after her husband's peerage, rather than her rank as a princess, but they are both by virtue of their marriage.

For example, Katharine is legally HRH Princess Edward, The Duchess of Kent, but styled only as HRH The Duchess of Kent in practice.

[Warren]

A reminder that we have a separate thread for the titles of William and Harry and their spouses, here.
v

[CasiraghiTrio]

Originally Posted by branchg

This is true as Diana was never granted the right to assume the dignity by the Queen via letters patent. However, the Palace confirmed after the divorce that it was acceptable to refer to Diana as "Princess Diana", although technically she was no longer a princess, as she was the mother of a future king.

I recall also that after her death, The Queen issued something like a statement saying that Diana could be referred to as 'the' Princess of Wales (not sure if it was only lower-case 't' or not) until, of course, Prince Charles remarried.So I suppose from 1997 through 2005, you could write her name as Diana, the Princess of Wales instead of just Diana, Princess of Wales.

I enjoy your posts a lot, branchg. I think you are right. I disagree about your view that only Anglicans can marry into the royal family under the Act of Settlement; after all, as Elspeth pointed out, as long as it doesn't say that specifically, the intent of the act's creation in 1701 is irrelevant now, and in any case, it does only say that Catholics are prohibited. But about the titles of Prince William and Prince Harry after marriage, I think your points make sense. I don't think Prince William will be granted a dukedom at any time before his father's ascension unless Queen Elizabeth decides to follow the precedent of Queen Victoria making her grandson Duke of Clarence and Avondale. Obviously, I don't expect those particular dukedoms to be used, but with that precedent existing, QEII could technically issue a dukedom for her grandson.

[Henri M.]

Originally Posted by Suonymona

the title actually goes to Charles as the oldest male descendant but there is an "understanding" he will not actually accept it

This is not possible. When a Peer dies, the heir to the peerage needs nothing to confirm, to deny, to accept or to sign, whatever like that.
When the Peer blows out his last breath, his heir automatically has become the new Peer.

This counts for all Peers.

The current Viscount Ingestre will automatically become the 23rd Earl of Shrewsbury when the 23rd Earl dies;
The current Marquess of Worcester will automatically become the 12th Duke of Beaufort when the 11th Duke dies;
The current Earl of Wiltshire will automatically become the 19th Marquess of Winchester when the 18th Marquess dies;
The current Prince of Wales will automatically become the 2nd Duke of Edinburgh when the 1st Duke dies.

Neither the Viscount Ingestre, nor the Marquess of Worcester, nor the Earl of Wilthsire nor the Prince of Wales, nor any other heir to a peerage can consider not 'to accept' the peerage.

[CasiraghiTrio]

Henri, this makes complete sense, of course, and I am not arguing, but only pointing out some information (as a question) that I was given by Sandy Henney, who was Assistant Press Sec. at the time (1994). Ms. Henney informed me, in discussing the Dukes of Kent and Gloucester, those dukedoms would revert back to the Crown after the deaths of the current dukes. Do you or does anyone know if that is so? It always seemed to be as odd, but I took it on authority since I didn't want to question Ms. Henney's knowledge of the scope of her work environment. I brought this up once long ago at alt.talk.royalty and was laughed out, because they could not accept it. So I am asking again, just in case someone here might know.

[Henri M.]

Originally Posted by CasiraghiTrio

in discussing the Dukes of Kent and Gloucester, those dukedoms would revert back to the Crown after the deaths of the current dukes.

No, after the death of HRH Prince Edward of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the 2nd Duke of Kent, his son Lord George Windsor, the Earl of St. Andrews will become the 3rd Duke of Kent.

And after the death of HRH Prince Richard of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the 2nd Duke of Gloucester, his son Lord Alexander Windsor, the Earl of Ulster, will become the 3rd Duke of Gloucester.

But as both the Earl of St. Andrews and the Earl of Ulster are no sons or grandsons of a Sovereign, their Dukedom will cease to be a royal dukedom.

Their style will change from a royal dukedom into a normal dukedom with the style 'His Grace the Duke of Kent' / 'His Grace the Duke of Gloucester'.

[CasiraghiTrio]

Ah yes, I see. So perhaps she was saying that when TRH die, their royal dukedoms revert back to the crown, leaving out what she assumed was second natural understanding that the titles will automatically be reissued as regular dukedoms?

In order for the dukedoms to lose the royal status, there must be a reverting back and reissue because otherwise the loss of the royal honorifics would not make sense.

[Henri M.]

Originally Posted by CasiraghiTrio

In order for the dukedoms to lose the royal status, there must be a reverting back and reissue because otherwise the loss of the royal honorifics would not make sense.

Well, in fact nothing regarding their peerages is reverted. But the 3rd Duke of Gloucester and the 3rd Duke of Kent will make an enormous downfall in terms of hierarchy.

Because the present Earl of St. Andrews and the Earl of Ulster are no sons of grandsons of a Sovereign, they are no Princes. As a result of that they also are no HRH. And as a result of that they fall out of the Court Hierarchy, in which their fathers the present Duke of Gloucester and the present Duke of Kent are so high ranked.

The 3rd Duke of Gloucester and the 3rd Duke of Kent come last after the Dukes of the Peerage of England, the Dukes of the Peerage of Scotland, the Dukes of the Peerage of Ireland, the Dukes of the Peerage of Great Britain and finally all Dukes of the Peerage of the United Kingdom who outrank them in anciennity (only the creations of Edinburgh and York are younger).

Their precedence would be, fictional, today:

1. Edward Fitzalan-Howard, The Most Noble the (18th) Duke of Norfolk
2. John Seymour, His Grace the (19th) Duke of Somerset
3. Charles Gordon-Lennox, His Grace the (10th) Duke of Richmond
4. Hugh FitzRoy, His Grace the (11th) Duke of Grafton
5. David Somerset, His Grace the (11th) Duke of Beaufort
6. Murray Beauclerk, His Grace the (14th) Duke of St Albans
7. Andrew Russell, His Grace the (15th) Duke of Bedford
8. Peregrine Cavendish, His Grace the (12th) Duke of Devonshire
9. John Spencer-Churchill, His Grace the (11th) Duke of Marlborough
10. David Manners, His Grace the (11th) Duke of Rutland
11. Angus Douglas-Hamilton, His Grace the (15th) Duke of Hamilton
12. John Scott, His Grace the (9th) Duke of Buccleuch
13. Torquhil Campbell, His Grace the (13th) Duke of Argyll
14. John Murray, His Grace the (11th) Duke of Atholl
15. James Graham, His Grace the (8th) Duke of Montrose
16. Guy Innes-Ker, His Grace the (10th) Duke of Roxburghe
17. Alexander Montagu, His Grace the (13th) Duke of Manchester
18. Ralph Percy, His Grace the (12th) Duke of Northumberland
19. Maurice FitzGerald, His Grace the (9th) Duke of Leinster
20. James Hamilton, His Grace the (5th) Duke of Abercorn and (7th) Duke of Sutherland
21. Arthur Wellesley, His Grace the (8th) Duke of Wellington
22. Francis Egerton, His Grace the (7th) Duke of Sutherland
23. Gerald Grosvenor, His Grace the (6th) Duke of Westminster
24. James Carnegie, His Grace the (3rd) Duke of Fife
25. Arthur Wellesley, His Grace the (8th) Duke of Wellington
26. Gerald Grosvenor, His Grace the (6th) Duke of Westminster
27. James Carnegie, His Grace the (3rd) Duke of Fife
28. Alexander Windsor, His Grace the (3rd) Duke of Gloucester
29. George Windsor, His Grace the (3rd) Duke of Kent

[branchg]

Originally Posted by Henri M.

No, after the death of HRH Prince Edward of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the 2nd Duke of Kent, his son Lord George Windsor, the Earl of St. Andrews will become the 3rd Duke of Kent.

And after the death of HRH Prince Richard of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the 2nd Duke of Gloucester, his son Lord Alexander Windsor, the Earl of Ulster, will become the 3rd Duke of Gloucester.

But as both the Earl of St. Andrews and the Earl of Ulster are no sons or grandsons of a Sovereign, their Dukedom will cease to be a royal dukedom.

Their style will change from a royal dukedom into a normal dukedom with the style 'His Grace the Duke of Kent' / 'His Grace the Duke of Gloucester'.

Upon the deaths of Princes Edward and Richard, their dukedoms pass automatically to their surviving male issue, but they lose the qualification of Royal Highness under the 1917 Letters Patent of George V as great-grandsons in the male line of The Sovereign.

However, the dukedoms are considered royal since Kent and Gloucester are only granted to sons and grandsons of a Sovereign. Once there is no longer a male heir, they revert back to the Crown and are available again to be re-created for another member of the royal family in the future.

[branchg]

Originally Posted by Henri M.

Well, in fact nothing regarding their peerages is reverted. But the 3rd Duke of Gloucester and the 3rd Duke of Kent will make an enormous downfall in terms of hierarchy.

Their precedence follows their place in the line of succession to the throne as descendants of George V, assuming they remain in union with The Church of England.

[Henri M.]

Originally Posted by branchg

Their precedence follows their place in the line of succession to the throne as descendants of George V, assuming they remain in union with The Church of England.

Are we talking about the same precedence in society?

You mean that Zara Phillips or Arthur Chatto, or James Ogilvy, or Zenouska Mowatt do outrank someone like The Most Noble Edward Fitzalan-Howard, Duke of Norfolk, Premier Duke and Premier Earl of England, the Earl Marshal?

[ysbel]

Henri, why does your list have some peers listed twice?

For example, the Duke of Sutherland and the Duke of Westminster? One person cannot occupy two different positions in the rank of precedence.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by branchg

Upon the deaths of Princes Edward and Richard, their dukedoms pass automatically to their surviving male issue, but they lose the qualification of Royal Highness under the 1917 Letters Patent of George V as great-grandsons in the male line of The Sovereign.

However, the dukedoms are considered royal since Kent and Gloucester are only granted to sons and grandsons of a Sovereign. Once there is no longer a male heir, they revert back to the Crown and are available again to be re-created for another member of the royal family in the future.

Found this at wiki:

In the United Kingdom, there is nothing about the particular dukedom that makes it 'royal'. Rather, these peerages are called "royal dukedoms" because they are held by a member of the royal family who is entitled to the style Royal Highness. Although the term "royal duke" therefore has no official meaning per se, the category "duke of the Blood Royal" was acknowledged as a rank conferring special precedence at court in the unrevoked 20th clause of the Lord Chamberlain's order of 1520. This decree accorded precedence to any peer related by blood to the Sovereign above all others of the same degree within the peerage. The order did not apply within Parliament, nor did it grant precedence above the Archbishop of Canterbury or other Great Officers of State such as is now enjoyed by royal dukes. But it placed junior Dukes of the Blood Royal above the most senior non-royal duke, junior Earls of the Blood Royal above the most senior non-royal earl, etc. It did not matter how distantly related to the monarch the peers might be (presumably they ranked among each other in order of succession to the Crown). Although legally "time does not run against the King", so that the 1520 order is theoretically still in effect, in fact the "Blood Royal" clause seems to have fallen into desuetude sometime in the 19th century. Thus peers of the Blood Royal who are not grandchildren of a Sovereign no longer enjoy precedence above other peers.
Under the 20 November 1917, Letters Patent of King George V, the titular dignity of Prince/Princess and the style Royal Highness are restricted to the sons of a Sovereign, the sons of a Sovereign's sons, and the eldest living son of the eldest son of a Prince of Wales. For example, when the current Duke of Gloucester and Duke of Kent are succeeded by their eldest sons, the Earl of Ulster and the Earl of St. Andrews, respectively, those peerages (or rather, the 1928 and 1934 creations of them) will cease to be royal dukedoms, instead the title holders will become ordinary Dukes. The third dukes of Gloucester and Kent will each be styled "His Grace" because as great grandsons of George V, they are not Princes and are not styled HRH. Similarly, upon the death of Prince Arthur, Duke of Connaught (1850-1942), the third son of Queen Victoria, his only male-line grandson, Alastair Arthur Windsor, Earl of MacDuff (1914-1943), briefly succeeded to his peerages. However, as a duke, the second Duke of Connaught, a male-line great grandson of Queen Victoria, he was simply styled "His Grace".


I found the link to the Lord Chamberlain's Order of 1520 most interesting. And an additional thought: as the souverain can confer precedence to a dukedom (not only court precedence but precedence in society, too) one needs to see the origianal Letters Patent to see if it was done or not.

[Henri M.]

Originally Posted by ysbel

Henri, why does your list have some peers listed twice?

For example, the Duke of Sutherland and the Duke of Westminster? One person cannot occupy two different positions in the rank of precedence.

The Duke of Sutherland is Lord Francis Egerton.
The Duke of Westminster is Lord Gerald Grosvenor.
So they are different persons.


But I see I have mistyped the Duke of Westminster twice on 23 and 26.
My excuses, there is only one Duke of Westminster, of course.