Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Mbruno]

Does William have 2 titles? Because he is called "Prince William, Duke of Cambridge". So he have titles"Prince and "Duke". Can any one (brf)have more than a title?

Yes, many British peers have more than one title. William for example is also an Earl and a Baron in addition to being a Duke.

What is the difference between Duke/Duchess and Count/Countess?

is count/countess and earl all same titles?

Who becomes Duke of Edinburgh after Prince Philip?

Does there is anyone with title Duchess Of Edinburgh?

1. Duke is the highest rank in the peerage of the United Kingdom. Earl is the third highest rank, below Duke and Marquess, and above Viscount and Baron.

2. The nobility system in other European countries is not directly comparable to the peerage system in the UK, but, very roughly speaking, a Count would be the equivalent rank in continental European nobility to an Earl in the British peerage. Note, however, that the wife of a continental European Count and the wife of a British Earl are both called "Countess" in English. Likewise, a woman who holds a British peerage in her own right at the rank of Earl is also a Countess.

In some countries (for example, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden), all children of a (male) Count are often also Counts/Countesses from birth, although that is not always the case. In those cases, 'Count' functions as a prefix that is attached to a particular (patrilineal) family name. In other countries, most notably Spain and previously also in France, 'Count', like 'Earl' in the United Kingdom, is a title that is uniquely identified by a name ID, which can be either a family name or something else (for example a territorial designation, more common in older titles), and each uniquely identified title is held by one person only at any given time. Usually the title is transmitted hereditarily to the heir presumptive when the previous title holder dies, which is also the system used in the UK, but, in Spain for example, the law also allows a person who has more than one title to distribute his/her titles in life among his/her descendants, provided that the main (i.e. most senior) title is reserved to the heir presumptive.


3. Prince Charles is the current Duke of Edinburgh. Camilla, as his wife, is the current Duchess of Edinburgh.

 

[Iluvbertie]

What was Princess Diana's title after her divorce?

Is Mountbatten-Winsor a title ?

After her divorce she was Diana, Prince of Wales.

Mountbatten-Windsor is a surname like Smith or Nguyen.

When Prince Philip needed a surname he took the Anglicised version of his mother's maiden name and became Philip Mountbatten.

When the Queen ascended the throne she announced that the House and Family name would remain as Windsor.

Then in 1960 she decided that all her descendants who needed a surname would have the surname of Mountbatten-Windsor.

Princess Anne had Mountbatten-Windsor put on her marriage certificate as her maiden name.

The first person to use it in a day-to-day situation is Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor although she does use just Windsor at school. Schools will often allow a student to use one name of a hyphenated name informally but the full name official e.g. on school reports.

We also had William and Catherine use Mountbatten-Windsor in their legal case in France which doesn't allow the use of titles.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

2. The nobility system in other European countries is not directly comparable to the peerage system in the UK, but, very roughly speaking, a Count would be the equivalent rank in continental European nobility to an Earl in the British peerage. Note, however, that the wife of a continental European Count and the wife of a British Earl are both called "Countess" in English. Likewise, a woman who holds a British peerage in her own right at the rank of Earl is also a Countess.

Earl is translated into Count in other European languages, at least those with which I am familiar.

In some countries (for example, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden), all children of a (male) Count are often also Counts/Countesses from birth, although that is not always the case. In those cases, 'Count' functions as a prefix that is attached to a particular (patrilineal) family name.

In Sweden the daughters of Counts are untitled from birth. Extramarital or adoptive children of a Count are also excluded from inheriting the status of Counts/Countesses in all of these countries, apart from the Netherlands.

I think the Netherlands is the only one of the countries where the title is legally attached to a specific family name, although of course you are right that functionally they are attached as noble families nearly always follow patrilineal naming conventions even though it is no longer legally required.

 

[Mbruno]

Earl is translated into Count in other European languages, at least those with which I am familiar.

In English, however, Earl and Count are two different words, as are Marquis and Marquess. The words Count and Marquis are used only for non-British titles of nobility.



I personally prefer not to equate "Earl" and "Count" because, as explained above and below, the title of Count in some countries may be substantially different in legal regulation and mode of transmission from the title of Earl in the UK.

In Sweden the daughters of Counts are untitled from birth. Extramarital or adoptive children of a Count are also excluded from inheriting the status of Counts/Countesses in all of these countries, apart from the Netherlands.

Yes, unmarried daughters of a Swedish count or baron are only called Fröken. However, when they marry another nobleman, the custom was that they could then use the prefix Countess or Baroness. According to our fellow member JR76, that custom is fading now in Sweden, but it is still technically possible.

I think the Netherlands is the only one of the countries where the title is legally attached to a specific family name, although of course you are right that functionally they are attached as noble families nearly always follow patrilineal naming conventions even though it is no longer legally required.

In Sweden at least, the official nobility as recognized under the Riddarhusordning are the members of the families who are represented in the Riddarhus, with the caveat that, for famiies that were introduced in the House after 1809, only the most senior agnate of the family is considered noble (and holds the family title, e.g. count or baron when the family is titled). So, clearly, nobility status and titles when applicable are linked to a particular family (or, in an alternative translation, a particular noble "house") and transmission of nobility is also strictly in male line under the terms of the Riddarhusordning.



Mutatis mutandis. that is the same in Belgium, the Netherlands and Denmark where any directory of the nobility is in fact a list of the "noble houses" (or "noble families") rather than a list of individual title holders like the roll of the peerage in the UK or the directoy of the Diputación de la Grandeza de España y Títulos del Reino in Spain. Note that it doesn't follow from the attachment of the title to a family name that the title is necessarily part of the legal name. That is not the point I was trying to make. In fact I don't know how the traditional nobility law will be reconciled with recent changes in civil law that allow children to choose their paternal or maternal surname as legal family name. That is a difficult issue.


Note also that, in a peerage system where female succession is possible, e.g. in Spain, titles are not linked to a particular family and, over time, they actually shift from one family to another (meaning they may be inherited by people with a different family name/surname than the previous holder). That is the case even when the first holder's surname is part of the unique title designation.

 

[Sionevar]

In English, however, Earl and Count are two different words, as are Marquis and Marquess. The words Count and Marquis are used only for non-British titles of nobility.

Interestingly, Marquis is sometimes used in Scotland. I'm not sure why - maybe an influence through the Auld Alliance?

The Marquess of Lorne - Queen Victoria's son-in-law and a former GG of Canada - was also known as the Marquis of Lorne. There is a Marquis of Lorne Trail not far from my house

https://roadsign.pictures/place/alberta/Calgary

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Yes, unmarried daughters of a Swedish count or baron are only called Fröken. However, when they marry another nobleman, the custom was that they could then use the prefix Countess or Baroness. According to our fellow member JR76, that custom is fading now in Sweden, but it is still technically possible.

And when daughters of a Danish count or baron marry, they lose the right to the prefix Countess or Baroness (many women continue to use them nonetheless), unless of course they marry a Count or Baron respectively.

In Sweden at least, the official nobility as recognized under the Riddarhusordning are the members of the families who are represented in the Riddarhus, with the caveat that, for famiies that were introduced in the House after 1809, only the most senior agnate of the family is considered noble (and holds the family title, e.g. count or baron) when the family is titled. So, clearly, nobility status and titles when applicable are linked to a particular family (or, in an alternative translation, a noble "house) and transmission of nobility is also strictly in male line under the terms of the Riddarhusordning.

Mutatis mutandis. that is the same in Belgium, the Netherlands and Denmark where any directory of the nobility is in fact a list of the "noble houses" (or "noble families") rather than a list of individual title holders lije the roll of the peerage in the UK or the directoy of the Diputación de la Grandeza de España y Títulos del Reino in Spain. Note that it doesn't follow from the attachment of the title to a family name that the title is necessarily part of the legal name. That is not the point I was trying to make.

Note that in a peerage system where female succession is possible, e.g. in Spain, titles are not linked to a particular family and, over time, they actually shift fron one family to another (meaning they are inherited by people with a different family name/surname than the previous holder). That is the case even when the title designation is the first holder's surname.

What I was trying to point out was that the part I have bolded is also the case in Belgium, Sweden, and Denmark. While noble titles in these countries are transmitted strictly in male line, that is not the case for family names/surnames. Most parents persist in using patrilineal naming, but there is no law to require it.

As an example, it would have been possible for Count Carl Johan of Rosenborg and his children to take the maiden name of Carl Johan's wife, which was Nielsen. Had the couple made that choice, they and their children would have been Count/Countess Nielsen, and the title of Count/Countess would have ceased to be strictly linked to the family (name) of Rosenborg.

 

[Mbruno]

And when daughters of a Danish count or baron marry, they lose the right to the prefix Countess or Baroness (many women continue to use them nonetheless), unless of course they marry a Count or Baron respectively.




What I was trying to point out was that the part I have bolded is also the case in Belgium, Sweden, and Denmark. While noble titles in these countries are transmitted strictly in male line, that is not the case for family names/surnames. Most parents persist in using patrilineal naming, but there is no law to require it.

As an example, it would have been possible for Count Carl Johan of Rosenborg and his children to take the maiden name of Carl Johan's wife, which was Nielsen. Had the couple made that choice, they and their children would have been Count/Countess Nielsen, and the title of Count/Countess would have ceased to be strictly linked to the family (name) of Rosenborg.

That is exactly the doubt I have, see the updated version of my previous post, which was posted before your reply.


Specifically, I don't know how recent changes to naming law are being now reconciled with nobility law. Can someone who takes his/her mother's maiden name still be called Count/Baron [Father's Surname] ? I recall that the Belgian Nobility Association for example was against that and made a submission to the government stating their position. But I am not aware of how the debate progressed after that.


The Spanish case is slightly different, I think, because in titles like "Duque de Suárez" or "Marqués de Vargas Llosa", the adjuncts "de Suárez" or "de Vargas Llosa" are not family names, but rather title designations and are therefore transmitted with the title irrespective of the legal family name of the heir. Note that Adolfo Suárez or Mario Vargas Llosa legal names incidentally do not include in particular the preposition 'de' .

 

[Tatiana Maria]

That is exactly the doubt I have, see the updated version of my previous post, which was posted before your reply.

Specifically, I don't know how recent changes to naming law are being now reconciled with nobility law. Can someone who takes his/her mother's maiden name still be called Count/Baron [Father's Surname] ? I recall that the Belgian Nobility Association for example was against that and made a submission to the government stating their position. But I am not aware of how the debate progressed after that.

The Spanish case is slightly different, I think, because in titles like "Duque de Suárez" or "Marqués de Vargas Llosa", the adjuncts "de Suárez" or "de Vargas Llosa" are not family names, but rather title designations and are therefore transmitted with the title irrespective of the legal family name of the heir. Note that Adolfo Suárez or Mario Vargas Llosa legal names incidentally do not include in particular the preposition 'de' .

Yes, Spain and the UK are different. In Belgium, titles of nobility are (as you earlier mentioned) prefixes such as Count or Baron which are not linked to any adjuncts like "of Blank". For a Count Patrick d'Udekem d'Acoz, the title is "Count" (not "Count d'Udekem d'Acoz") and the surname is "d'Udekem d'Acoz". Refer to this post for additional details and sources:Titles of the Belgian Royal Family

I understand it works in the same fashion in Denmark and Sweden. In the case of a Count of Rosenborg, "Count" is the title of nobility and "of Rosenborg" is the surname. In this way, the daughters of Count Christian of Rosenborg were able to transmit the surname "of Rosenborg" to their children although Danish titles of nobility are transmitted strictly in marital male line.

Consequently, if a Count of Rosenborg decided not to name his children with his surname, they would not be called "of Rosenborg" as that is his surname and does not form part of his title. The children, if born in wedlock, would be born as Counts and Countesses as Danish titles of nobility are transmitted through the marital male line irrespective of family name.

Hvad er dansk adel

("Count of Monpezat" is an exceptional case where "of Monpezat" forms part of the title and is apparently not a surname.)


The Swedish nobility also appears not to restrict transmission of titles of nobility on the basis of family name, though nobility and titles are no longer officially recognized in that country.

https://www.riddarhuset.se/adeln-nu-och-da/adeln-i-dag/vem-ar-adlig/

 

[bethaliz6894]

Charles is Prince of Wales" and so ,Prince Diana become "Princess of Wales" by her marriage. But Why did Camilla become Duchess of Cornwall but not Princess of Wales?

I read a long time ago, Camilla is Princess of Wales and chose not to use the title out of respect for Diana and her boys.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I read a long time ago, Camilla is Princess of Wales and chose not to use the title out of respect for Diana and her boys.

Camilla is HRH The Princess of Wales as the wife of HRH The Prince of Wales. She decided not to use that title but that doesn't stop her having it.

Further evidence:

when in Chester Camilla is HRH The Countess of Chester (as noted in the CC - Charles is The Earl of Chester).

Charles was created Earl of Chester in the same Letters Patent as he was created Prince of Wales. They are traditionally given at the same time.

Camilla can't be The Countess of Chester if she isn't also The Princess of Wales.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I still think the writing was on the wall about titles at least since the Queen granted HRH/Prince(ss) to all of William's children while Kate was pregnant with George. It would have been easier to extend it to "all of the heir apparent's grandchildren" or something like that rather than specify all of William's children, but she didn't. It was a non-issue at that point because Harry was still single, but I think it reflected a deliberate decision that Harry's future kids wouldn't need (and wouldn't get) all the trappings.

Because the letters patent of 2012 stipulated "all the children of the eldest son of The Prince of Wales", I believe that if Queen Elizabeth had decided to extend HRH Prince(ss) to Prince Harry's future children, the terms would have been "all the children of the sons of the Prince of Wales" and not the gender-equal "all of the heir apparent's grandchildren".

If we play the game with the wayback machine where the Queen was pregnant with her first child and Parliament amended The Succession to the Crown act at that time that the firstborn child would be heir apparent regardless of gender, it would be possible that King George VI issued new letters patent to establish that the Queen's firstborn's children would be titled, it would be doing so just in case her first child was Anne instead of Charles as we'd see the same situation of titles of children in the *main line of succession*.

It would be weird if Anne was born first and heir apparent to the Crown but unable to pass on titles because she's in line to be monarch but as a female, can't pass titles through the main line of succession to the Crown.

It is very strange indeed, but that is the present situation under the letters patent of 1917 and 2012. If George were Georgiana, the HRH Prince(ss) would pass to her brother Louis's children, but not to hers, until such time as she ascended the throne.

It's not relevant to compare Prince Harry's children with Prince Andrew's children. Prince Andrew is the son of the monarch. Prince Harry is the grandson of the monarch. Harry's children are not in the same position as Beatrice and Eugenie. They are in the same position as people like Lord Freddie Windsor, Lady Helen Taylor and Lady Rose Gilmour. None of them have the style of HRH.

In my opinion Harry's children, as a grandchildren of a future monarch, are in practicality more comparable to the grandchildren of the current monarch than to grandchildren of a previous monarch's younger son. That said, I acknowledge that the traditional orders of precedence in the British royal family follow the lines of your description.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...-but-his-brother-is-not-on-his-side-77v25z3b0

https://archive.ph/0XuTJ

This report is already being discussed in Royal Dukes, Royal Duchies and Royal Ducal Titles, but I will move my comments which are unrelated to royal duchies to this thread.

The article states

A Clarence House spokesman said: “We do not comment on matters related to the accession.”
Buckingham Palace declined to comment.​

The claim of "We do not comment on matters related to the accession" seems to be irregularly applied. Buckingham Palace made an official announcement in 1999 about the future of the Duke of Edinburgh title after the deaths of Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip, and Clarence House made an official announcement in 2005 about the future title of Camilla Parker Bowles after her husband's accession to the throne.

...breaking two promises?

A. The Princess Consort promise

B. The Duke of Edinburgh promise

[...]

PS I don’t believe the story in the Times.

It is interesting that this is the third time in the last decade that there have been rumors, which may or may not have any truth to them, alleging that the Prince of Wales will reverse his previous plans for titles during his reign: the Dukedom of Edinburgh announcement, the Princess Consort announcement, and the leaked (but never formally announced) decision about allowing Archie to use HRH Prince under the 1917 Letters Patent.

 

[Excalibur]

This report is already being discussed in Royal Dukes, Royal Duchies and Royal Ducal Titles, but I will move my comments which are unrelated to royal duchies to this thread.

The article states

A Clarence House spokesman said: “We do not comment on matters related to the accession.”
Buckingham Palace declined to comment.​

The claim of "We do not comment on matters related to the accession" seems to be irregularly applied. Buckingham Palace made an official announcement in 1999 about the future of the Duke of Edinburgh title after the deaths of Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip, and Clarence House made an official announcement in 2005 about the future title of Camilla Parker Bowles after her husband's accession to the throne.

It is interesting that this is the third time in the last decade that there have been rumors, which may or may not have any truth to them, alleging that the Prince of Wales will reverse his previous plans for titles during his reign: the Dukedom of Edinburgh announcement, the Princess Consort announcement, and the leaked (but never formally announced) decision about allowing Archie to use HRH Prince under the 1917 Letters Patent.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, the Princess Consort "promise" was actually an "intention", and the Duke of Edinburgh was an agreement that the title "should" go to Edward, not that it "would". And of course, Charles' slimming down of the monarchy has never been officially acknowledged.
Semantics, I know, but it does give Charles an out.

If Charles takes any one of these "outs", he will probably be OK with the British public. If he takes all three? It could be a disaster. IMO

 

[royal-blue]

If Prince Michael got divorced, would his current wife still be entitled to be called Princess Michael?

Also if he were then to remarry, would both his new and firmer wife be known as Princess Michael simultaneously?

 

[Princess B]

If Prince Michael got divorced, would his current wife still be entitled to be called Princess Michael?



Also if he were then to remarry, would both his new and firmer wife be known as Princess Michael simultaneously?

My guess is she would be known as Marie - Christine, Princess of Kent.

I’m quite sure I’m wrong though

 

[Mbruno]

My guess is she would be known as Marie - Christine, Princess of Kent.

Maybe Marie-Christine, Princess Michael of Kent ? In analogy with Diana, Princess of Wales and Sarah, Duchess of York.

 

[Roslyn]

Hmm. This one's got the little grey cells working. It's a bit different and I can't think of a precedent. Prince of Wales is a specific title and Duke of York is a peerage title, and it follows in those cases that by tradition the wife takes on the female form i.e. Princess of Wales and Duchess of York. Prince is a royal title but not quite the same thing, in my view. I have a gut feeling that the case of a woman being known as Princess (husband's first name) is a different situation and that once she was no longer Michael's wife, Mrs Michael Kent - which is in essence what "Princess Michael of Kent" means - she would become Mrs Marie-Christine Kent. This would be in keeping with the fact that a prince without a peerage is a commoner. The alternative would be for her to be called Princess Marie-Christine Kent, and that isn't going to happen. Marie-Christine, Princess Michael of Kent or Marie-Christine, Princess of Kent, just don't sound right to me; not that that means anything. I feel the answer is in my brain somewhere, lurking just out of reach. I look forward to the views of others.

 

[Curryong]

Surely there are younger sons and brothers of British peers who are divorced? What styling do their ex wives use? Surely they would still be Lady James ——, Lady George ——- etc, with their Christian names in front on more more formal occasions, especially if their ex husbands remarried?

I just can’t see an ex wife of Prince Michael being referred to as Mrs. considering that all married women in Britain (if they want to) take their husbands status and rank throughout the marriage, into divorce and until they remarry. Of course Marie- Christine could revert back to her birth name after a divorce if she wanted to, I guess.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

If Prince Michael got divorced, would his current wife still be entitled to be called Princess Michael?

Also if he were then to remarry, would both his new and firmer wife be known as Princess Michael simultaneously?

The decision would rest with the monarch and there is no precedent to look to within the British royal family, but I would expect Queen Elizabeth to decide that Marie-Christine would continue to be known as Princess Michael of Kent in a hypothetical divorce.

Queen Elizabeth decided in 1996 that the former wives of royal peers were to be called as if they were former wives of non-royal peers, who add their given names to the peerage title they took from their former husband, as in Diana, Princess of Wales, and Sarah, Duchess of York. It follows that she would allow the former wives of younger sons of royal peers to be called as if they were former wives of younger sons of non-royal peers, whose titles do not change after divorce.

Widow and Former Wife of the Younger Son of an Earl

There is no difference in the form of address in widowhood, or in the dissolution of her marriage. Should she remarry, however, she adopts her style form her new husband.​

And yes, in the event that the younger son of a non-royal peer has remarried while his former wife has not, the new wife and ex-wife would simultaneously be called for example Lady John Smith.

 

[Gawin]

Surely there are younger sons and brothers of British peers who are divorced? What styling do their ex wives use? Surely they would still be Lady James ——, Lady George ——- etc, with their Christian names in front on more more formal occasions, especially if their ex husbands remarried?

I just can’t see an ex wife of Prince Michael being referred to as Mrs. considering that all married women in Britain (if they want to) take their husbands status and rank throughout the marriage, into divorce and until they remarry. Of course Marie- Christine could revert back to her birth name after a divorce if she wanted to, I guess.

Yes, Lady Colin Campbell comes to mind. Divorced from the younger son of the 11th Duke of Argyll since 1976 or thereabouts (after a brief marriage) but still known by her former husband's title.

Sent from my moto g(7) play using The Royals Community mobile app

 

[duke of poliganc]

If Prince Michael got divorced, would his current wife still be entitled to be called Princess Michael?

Also if he were then to remarry, would both his new and firmer wife be known as Princess Michael simultaneously?

I don’t want to add to the confusion but would she be styled Baroness Marie Christine, princess Michael of Kent?

 

[Curryong]

In theory I suppose anyone can style themselves however they want, but Marie-Christine’s Baroness title isn’t British and therefore isn’t officially recognised. And I think it would be unnecessarily complicated.

 

[SLV]

Mrs. M-C Kent makes the most sense to me.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Mrs. M-C Kent makes the most sense to me.

Were she to drop the title but retain her husband's name, she would use his legal surname as is done for other untitled members of the family, and be known as Mrs. Michael Windsor or Mrs. Marie-Christine Windsor.

However, British titles as a rule are retained by former wives after divorce.

 

[Roslyn]

Having mulled it over a bit, I am now inclined to think Mbruno was right and she'd be Marie-Christine, Princess Michael of Kent, with "Princess Michael of Kent" serving as a surname like "Princess of Wales" did for Diana. It still sounds clumsy to me though as it incorporates Michael's given name.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Having mulled it over a bit, I am now inclined to think Mbruno was right and she'd be Marie-Christine, Princess Michael of Kent, with "Princess Michael of Kent" serving as a surname like "Princess of Wales" did for Diana.

In my eyes, the former wife of a peer retains her marital title as a courtesy title, rather than a surname. That is also the understanding of Debrett's:

If a marriage between a duke and duchess has been dissolved, the former wife (although no longer a peeress) may continue to use her title as a duke's wife, preceded by her forename (unless she remarries*).​

It still sounds clumsy to me though as it incorporates Michael's given name.

"Princess Michael of Kent" sounds clumsy to me personally irrespective of the fact that the couple are married. However, a former wife of a Lord Michael Windsor would continue to be known as Lady Michael Windsor, so the continued use of her husband's forename after divorce would be consistent with the rules of the peerage.

 

[Roslyn]

But Prince Michael is not a member of the peerage, he is a commoner, which complicates things.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

But Prince Michael is not a member of the peerage, he is a commoner, which complicates things.

Both Prince Michael of Kent and the hypothetical Lord Michael Windsor are legally commoners as neither holds a peerage.

 

[Durham]

In such a hypothetical I suspect she would be known as Lady Michael Windsor as the divorced wife of a duke's younger son. Prince Michael is Lord Michael Windsor anyway isn't he?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

In such a hypothetical I suspect she would be known as Lady Michael Windsor as the divorced wife of a duke's younger son. Prince Michael is Lord Michael Windsor anyway isn't he?

As of now I don't think he is, though he would be entitled to call himself Lord Michael Windsor as a duke's younger son if he were to lose his princely title. As seen with his older brother and cousin being known as Prince Edward of Kent and Prince Richard of Gloucester instead of Earl of Saint Andrews and Earl of Ulster until they inherited their dukedoms, the royal titles bestowed by the Letters Patent of 1917 trump the courtesy titles to which the legitimate children of peers are entitled.