Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[CrownPrincessJava]

As the son of a Duke , he should be a Lord even if he didn’t use one of his father’s subsidiary titles as courtesy. There is no rationale to style him Master.

The rationale is that if Archie is known as Master, then it's the Queen's Will that he is known as that. It's the same argument why Lady Louise isn't styled as Princess of Wessex.

 

[Curryong]

I found this. Master is sometimes used in Scotland.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_(Peerage_of_Scotland)

 

[Somebody]

The rationale is that if Archie is known as Master, then it's the Queen's Will that he is known as that. It's the same argument why Lady Louise isn't styled as Princess of Wessex.

As has been discussed, it seems that while Lady Louise's title seems to be a permanent one, it's not clear yet that Archie will just be 'master Archie' all his life (well, at least until he otherwise would suddenly become a (royal?) duke).

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I found this. Master is sometimes used in Scotland.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_(Peerage_of_Scotland)

If Master was the use of a Scottish courtesy title for the heir of a peerage, it would be, based on Scottish usages, The Master of Sussex.

The Palace statement communicated that Archie's parents "have chosen not to give him a courtesy title at this time". For him, the use of Master is the equivalent of Mister for young boys, in the same way the palace uses Master for page boys at royal weddings.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

It is interesting that the Palace makes a pointto use the right style for Eugenie, but not for Archie Mountabatten-Windsor.

Archie's titles are determined by his parents at this age and it is clear that Harry and Meghan have asked for him to be styled as Master and not as Lord or Earl Dumbarton.

I think the original comment may have been wondering as to why the Duke and Duchess of Sussex had a choice whereas Princess Eugenie did not. Archie's parents had the ability to determine how their son would be styled because the Queen allowed them the choice. A declaration of the Queen's Will would have overruled the wishes of the parents.

For Princess Eugenie, it seems she had no choice. I think it is improbable that the change from "of York" to "Mrs. Jack Brookbrank" was sought by Eugenie herself and that it was most likely the Queen's Will, for the reasons I discussed here:

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...title-in-his-future-44267-16.html#post2223727

 

[Mbruno]

The rationale is that if Archie is known as Master, then it's the Queen's Will that he is known as that. It's the same argument why Lady Louise isn't styled as Princess of Wessex.

The Queen's will and pleasure extends to royal titles and styles like Prince/Princess, but not to courtesy styles in the peerage. Could the Queen decide that it is her will and pleasure that a son of an ordinary Duke be styled as Master xxxx rather than Lord xxx ? I don't think so.

The Palace statement communicated that Archie's parents "have chosen not to give him a courtesy title at this time". For him, the use of Master is the equivalent of Mister for young boys, in the same way the palace uses Master for page boys at royal weddings.

They may have chosen not to call him "Earl of Dumbarton", but why would they choose not to call him "Lord Archie Mountbatten-Windsor" rather than "Master Artchie" ?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

They may have chosen not to call him "Earl of Dumbarton", but why would they choose not to call him "Lord Archie Mountbatten-Windsor" rather than "Master Artchie" ?

I have wondered about that as well, since the Duke and Duchess of Sussex apparently have no difficulty with their son having a title. Depending on what source one believes, they have either agreed to their son using the title of Prince, or agreed to their son becoming a legal prince with the option of using the title, once his grandfather is King. If they preferred the sound of "Archie" to Dumbarton or Kilkeel, or if they wished to treat Archie the same way as any future younger siblings, Lord Archie would also be in line with those intentions.

The sole difference I can see between Lord Archie Mountbatten-Windsor and Master/Mr. Archie Mountbatten-Windsor is that Lord Archie Mountbatten-Windsor would properly be addressed using his first name as Lord Archie, while Master/Mr. Archie Mountbatten-Windsor would properly be addressed using his last name as Master/Mr. Mountbatten-Windsor.

The Queen's will and pleasure extends to royal titles and styles like Prince/Princess, but not to courtesy styles in the peerage. Could the Queen decide that it is her will and pleasure that a son of an ordinary Duke be styled as Master xxxx rather than Lord xxx ? I don't think so.

It is left to the Queen to confer courtesy titles such as Lady and Lord on persons who are not ordinarily entitled to it, for example the siblings of a peer who inherited his peerage from his cousin. I would think it is also in her power to reverse that process.

 

[Iluvbertie]

As the son of a Duke , he should be a Lord even if he didn’t use one of his father’s subsidiary titles as courtesy. There is no rationale to style him Master.

The rationale is 'parents request'.

Their son and thus their decision.

That is all the rationale that is needed.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The Palace actually made a stronger point for Archie Mountbatten-Windsor's style: A statement was made and they have consistently called him Master Archie Mountbatten-Windsor.

By way of comparison, no statement was given on Princess Eugenie's style, and the Palace called her Princess Eugenie of York (including an entry in the Court Circular on March 21) up until some weeks ago, when her style was changed with no explanation to Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank.

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...title-in-his-future-44267-15.html#post2206491
http://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...title-in-his-future-44267-15.html#post2223305

No explanation is needed. The Queen doesn't need to make her Will public via a statement other than simply having the official records use the title she wants used.

The Queen's Will can be communicated anyway she wishes with no formal announcement of a change at all.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The rationale is 'parents request'.

I believe Mbruno is referring to the parents' rationale for their request.

Their son and thus their decision.

That is all the rationale that is needed.

The Queen's Will that the parents make the decision was needed as well. As I pointed out, the rationale "her name and thus her decision" did not extend to Princess Eugenie, whose own decision appears to have been overruled by the Queen's Will.

No explanation is needed. The Queen doesn't need to make her Will public via a statement other than simply having the official records use the title she wants used.

The Queen's Will can be communicated anyway she wishes with no formal announcement of a change at all.

That is true, but it is interesting that certain decisions are communicated with formal announcements while others are not. And it is strange that the change was carried out more than six months after the wedding instead of on the wedding day, as is tradition.

 

[VictoriaB]

The Queen's Will that the parents make the decision was needed as well. As I pointed out, the rationale "her name and thus her decision" did not extend to Princess Eugenie, whose own decision appears to have been overruled by the Queen's Will.

Unless someone here is in communication with Eugenie (and or the Queen) we don't know what Eugenie's choice is or the basis for that choice. She could have changed her mind and decided to be "Mrs Jack Brooksbank" after originally deciding to stick with "of York".

Similarly we don't know that the Queen has instructed that she will be known in a particular way.

The Queen was OK with her grandchildren and great-grandchildren being known as Master/Miss in the case of Archie, Zara and Peter or as Lord/Lady in the case of Louise and James. She seems a lot less concerned with titles and how someone should be known than others.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Unless someone here is in communication with Eugenie (and or the Queen) we don't know what Eugenie's choice is or the basis for that choice. She could have changed her mind and decided to be "Mrs Jack Brooksbank" after originally deciding to stick with "of York".

Similarly we don't know that the Queen has instructed that she will be known in a particular way.

You're correct that we don't know for sure, which I have tried to be clear about in my wording.

However, we know that Eugenie is still using York, and is not using Brooksbank, for her own charitable organization and her professional career.

The Queen was OK with her grandchildren and great-grandchildren being known as Master/Miss in the case of Archie, Zara and Peter or as Lord/Lady in the case of Louise and James. She seems a lot less concerned with titles and how someone should be known than others.

I'm not sure that acceptance of (great-)grandchildren using lower titles than the George V letters patent would rule (and Zara and Peter's lack of titles are in line with his letters patent) extends to acceptance of married women being known by their own names. As the Guardian article quoted earlier mentioned, the queen has a past record of insistence on married women being known by the names, even the given names, of their husbands.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Zara continued to use Philips as her professional name for a number of years after she married Mike. I see no difference with Eugenie continuing to use her maiden name for her work and charities while using her husband's name at official events.

The Queen seems to be quite happy to allow the girls to take their time in getting used to their new names.

 

[Abbigail]

Yes, that is exactly what they are doing. Children of dukes are known as Lords and Ladies, while the eldest is formally known by the duke's first subsidiary title (and his eldest son by the duke's second subsidiary title).

Had they asked us to stick to Lord Archie, it could be argued that they just didn't want to stress he was the eldest son but now they chose not to acknowledge he is the son of a duke at all (while he is his heir!). And theoretically he will be a prince when his grandfather ascends the throne. So, all extremely inconsistent (even more so because they released a picture of Archie with the queen (a first for her greatgrandchildren) when they announced he was to be known as master Archie).

But I am curiuos what good reasons you think they had to make this unlogical decision.

It's not unlogical considering that this is about a baby not having a courtesy title. Nothing about his young life changes because he's not referred to as Lord or Earl. Perhaps his parents like the idea of him just being Archie for now. Or perhaps they didn't want to use the courtesy title, knowing that he'll be HRH, likely within the next 10 years. That makes more sense than suggesting they want everyone to pretend he's not the son of a royal duke, which would a more compelling argument if we had reason to believe he would never be known as Earl of Dumbarton or Duke of Sussex.

 

[Rudolph]

Not to rain on anyone's parade but being the son of a royal Duke isn't the be all and end all.

Archie didn't receive gun salutes in green park or at the tower of London. Westminster abbey didn't mark the birth with a bell peel.

I think a lot of people are going to be disappointed that Archie never becomes a royal Highness

 

[Abbigail]

Frankly, I don't think most people care if he ever becomes HRH. In fact, many like that he may have more privacy and freedom to be who he wants. Regardless of his title, however, he will attract a lot interest and attention, as we are already seeing.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I think a lot of people are going to be disappointed that Archie never becomes a royal Highness

Rob Jobson in the London Evening Standard seems to have total confidence in his "senior source" who says that Archie will use "Prince" and "Royal Highness" on King Charles' accession.

Archie Harrison's title: Meghan Markle and Prince Harry's baby WILL become a Prince - once Charles is King | London Evening Standard

On the other hand, other reporters were told that nothing has been decided, but would any senior member of a royal staff assume and state a future decision to the press without having specific information?

 

[Rudolph]

^^^

I think a lot of these 'sources' are just going by the 1917 Letters Patent without actually knowing anything definite.

We all thought he'd be earl of Dumbarton but that was scuppered. It's nothing more than a gut feeling but I think Archie Mountbatten-Windsor will be his name until he becomes the Duke of Sussex.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I could certainly see the senior royal sources going by the current conventions as to being Earl of Dumbarton if there had been no definite decision, as the British royal family had always held to the British customs surrounding courtesy peerages.

But I have doubts that a senior source would assume based on the 1917 LPs without having definite knowledge, because in the last 20 years, the LPs have been ignored in more cases (the Wessex children and the younger Cambridge children) than they were applied in.

 

[soapstar]

It's quite possible that Archie will use Prince when Charles ascends, but I wouldn't put much faith into anonymous sources.

 

[padams2359]

I think they are leaving things to happen when Charles takes the throne, just to show how the LP of 1917 will continue to be used. Has this occurred since it was written? I also think that is when Harry will be given the O of G. If I am not mistaken, there has been a vacant spot for a few years that could have been filled.

 

[VictoriaB]

I think they are leaving things to happen when Charles takes the throne, just to show how the LP of 1917 will continue to be used. Has this occurred since it was written? I also think that is when Harry will be given the O of G. If I am not mistaken, there has been a vacant spot for a few years that could have been filled.

There doesnt need to be a vacancy for a member of the Royal Family to join the Order of the Garter. They are extra knights.

 

[HighGoalHighDreams]

I interrupt this thread with very sad news for members of this forum: there are no such people as Duchess Kate and Duchess Meghan.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg MP, Leader of the House of Commons and President of the Council, requested his staff to use Esq. for untitled gentlemen, instead of Mr.

Does that mean ALL gentlemen from ALL layers of society?

So no Mr Adam Smith
but
Adam Smith Esq

?

I thought Esq was for the likes of eh, let me think, Ross Poldark and George Warleggan, gentlemen of standing, of landed gentry, but not titled? But I understand it is for any male person? Does this mean any British male person receiving a letter from Parliament is now Esq.?

Link: https://www.ft.com/content/e0556f76-afc6-11e9-8030-530adfa879c2

 

[Mbruno]

Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg MP, Leader of the House of Commons and President of the Council, requested his staff to use Esq. for untitled gentlemen, instead of Mr.

Does that mean ALL gentlemen from ALL layers of society?

So no Mr Adam Smith
but
Adam Smith Esq

?

I thought Esq was for the likes of eh, let me think, Ross Poldark and George Warleggan, gentlemen of standing, of landed gentry, but not titled? But I understand it is for any male person? Does this mean any British male person receiving a letter from Parliament is now Esq.?

Link: https://www.ft.com/content/e0556f76-afc6-11e9-8030-530adfa879c2

Originally, esquire was used to denote the eldest sons of younger sons of a peer and their respective eldest sons in perpetuity. It was roughly equivalent to an écuyer or jonkheer in the Low Countries.

 

[Rudolph]

The law firm, Messrs Middleton and Sons, was founded in Leeds by gentleman farmer and solicitor William Middleton Esq. of Gledhow Grange Estate.

'Esquire' does retain an official place in the order of precedence.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

So my understanding that via Parliament every British male will be addressed as Adam Smith Esq. insteas of Mr Adam Smith was wrong?

 

[Denville]

Ross Poldark And George Warleggan both have titles anyway, Ross becoming a baronet and George being knighted

 

[Lumutqueen]

So my understanding that via Parliament every British male will be addressed as Adam Smith Esq. insteas of Mr Adam Smith was wrong?

Indeed.
That's something Mr Rees-Mogg can't do, the memo was to his staff and I believe it's only those individuals who work for Mr RM who have to follow the new rules he's "created".

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Indeed.
That's something Mr Rees-Mogg can't do, the memo was to his staff and I believe it's only those individuals who work for Mr RM who have to follow the new rules he's "created".

I think I was fooled by the title "Leader of the House of Commons" while it is and remains the Speaker indeed whom is responsible for the proper workings of the House.