Questions about British Styles and Titles

[Lumutqueen]

I have a strange question; if something were to happen to Charles and it was William who would succeed next and QE2 was still alive when William ascended the throne, how would QE2 be known as? Would she simply be HM Queen Elizabeth or something different?

[ladongas]

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen

I have a strange question; if something were to happen to Charles and it was William who would succeed next and QE2 was still alive when William ascended the throne, how would QE2 be known as? Would she simply be HM Queen Elizabeth or something different?

If William became King, then HM would be known as "the late Queen Elizabeth II".

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen

I have a strange question; if something were to happen to Charles and it was William who would succeed next and QE2 was still alive when William ascended the throne, how would QE2 be known as? Would she simply be HM Queen Elizabeth or something different?

Why would the Queen still be alive though?

She has said that she believes that a monarch is a job for life. She made that promise when she turned 21 and has never suggested that she would step down.

However, if the government decided to 'retire' monarchs at 90 then they would have to work out a title - - but Queen Elizabeth would make sense.

[Josefine]

prince daniel of sweden were called duke of Duke of Västergötland instead of prince i thought this were wrong but then i saw it were not prince philip but Duke of Edinburgh why is that is duke "higher" william is now duke not prince

help out a swede and tell me how it works

[Iluvbertie]

In Britain a Duke is a 'peer of the realm' and thus used to have a role in the government etc. The title of Duke is also one that can be passed to children etc

Princes are secondary titles and can be held by all children of a royal Duke but only the eldest son can inherit the Dukedom - Prince is the royal equivalent of Lord for the non-royal titled folk.

Prince is not one of the levels of the nobility - Dukes are nobles while princes aren't.

Queen Victoria wasn't too keen on creating her sons Dukes but it was also pointed out to her that if she didn't then they couldn't take a seat in the House of Lords but they could stand for and be elected to the House of Commons as they would be technically commoners and not Lords. It was also part of the reasoning behind making Edward VIII Duke of Windsor as plain HRH Prince Edward could stand for election to the House of Commons but HRH The Duke of Windsor, as a peer of the realm couldn't do so.

[ladongas]

I believe that HM would never abdicate/resign, but I wonder how affairs of state would progress if she were permanently incapacitated. Would PoW do the red boxes and open the Parliament?

Elderly people now live for much longer times after being diagnosed with a fatal or dementing or incapacitating disease, so future monarchs as well as HM are more likely to 'linger' than those in past centuries.

Well, I hope that HM will be like her mother who (reportedly) was wearing a red dress and hosting a drinks party two weeks before her demise.

[Iluvbertie]

If the Queen was mentally incapacitated Charles would be Prince Regent and would carry out all her duties - red boxes, signing legislation, conducting State Visits etc as happened when George III was incapacitated and George IV did that job for the last decade or so of his father's reign - as well as for a short period earlier in the reign.

[Lord Pemberley]

Hello! I'm new here and this is my first post so I hope I have chosen an appropriate place for it - if not Administrators please feel free to move it.

Following the creation of Prince William of Wales as Duke of Cambridge, Earl of Strathearn and Lord Carrickfergus on Friday, I have been thinking a lot about Royal Titles and have a few questions/discussion points which I thought I would share with you:

1. All current Royal Dukedoms (i.e. Cambridge, Edinburgh, York, Gloucester and Kent) are held with a subsidary Earldom and Barony, whilst the Royal Earldom of Wessex and the Earldom of Snowdon (which was created for the husband of a Princess and will pass to the grandson of the King) are held with a subsidary Viscounty. This made me wonder whether is is simply tradition that the titles be created in this configuration (i.e. that a Royal Duke will also be an Earl and a Baron), if it is just the Queen's preference or if there is another reason?

2. Does the rank of the subsidary titles matter at all? For example, the Dukedom of Kent is on its way out of the Royal Family and will soon cease to be a "Royal" Dukedom. Assuming that the Earl of Wessex is created Duke of Edinburgh as is expected and that this title similarly passes out of the Royal family to a son of Viscount Severn, would the fact that that the subsidary ranks to the new Dukedom of Edinburgh were an Earldom and a Viscounty, rather than an Earldom and Barony like the Kent Dukedom has, make the title more senior or important? (I hope that makes sense!)

3. It also made me wonder why no one in the Royal Family has a Royal Marquessate - either as a main title or as a subsidary one? Has there ever been a Royal Marquess?

4. Correct me if I am wrong but my understanding is that the primary reason for the Royal Dukes having more than one title is to represent that the UK is composed of several consituent countries (i.e they have a title representing England, Scotland and (Northern) Ireland) however I was thinking that, particularly in this day and age, if this is to be truly representative (or as representative as a titled member of a 'Royal' Family can be!) shouldn't there also be a title to represent Wales? I mean, I know the Duke of Cambridge will presumably eventually be invested with the title Prince of Wales when he becomes heir to the throne, but at present (despite living in Wales, which only adds to the irony) he went from being someone whose official title was "of Wales" to someone whose official titles no longer mention Wales? How much harder would it have been for the Queen to have added in the Viscounty of Bangor or the Marquessate of Wrexham (for example)?

I look forward to reading your comments on the above!

"Lord Pemberley"

[HM Queen Catherine]

Originally Posted by Lord Pemberley

1. All current Royal Dukedoms (i.e. Cambridge, Edinburgh, York, Gloucester and Kent) are held with a subsidary Earldom and Barony, whilst the Royal Earldom of Wessex and the Earldom of Snowdon (which was created for the husband of a Princess and will pass to the grandson of the King) are held with a subsidary Viscounty. This made me wonder whether is is simply tradition that the titles be created in this configuration (i.e. that a Royal Duke will also be an Earl and a Baron), if it is just the Queen's preference or if there is another reason?

Personally, I believe it has to do with recent tradition. The first Duke, Earl, Baron creation in recent history began with Queen Victoria's son Leopold, Duke of Albany - who was also created Earl of Clarence and Baron Arklow - although it wasn't quite "tradition" at that point.

Leopold's nephew, eldest son of Edward VII, was created Duke of Clarence and Avondale and Earl of Athlone (no barony), but his younger son (later George V) was created Duke of York, Earl of Inverness and Baron Killarney.

George V's 2nd son was also created Duke of York, Earl of Inverness and Baron Killarney, and in due time, he became George VI.

The next creation was for Prince Philip, who upon marriage to (then) Princess Elizabeth, was created Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Merioneth and Baron Greenwich.

The Queen has continued this tradition with The Prince Andrew, Duke of York, Earl of Inverness and Baron Killyleagh.

Obviously, since The Prince Edward is slated to gain the Duke of Edinburgh title eventually, there was no need to create another dukedom for him upon his marriage and therefore he was made an Earl instead.

Originally Posted by Lord Pemberley

2. Does the rank of the subsidary titles matter at all? For example, the Dukedom of Kent is on its way out of the Royal Family and will soon cease to be a "Royal" Dukedom. Assuming that the Earl of Wessex is created Duke of Edinburgh as is expected and that this title similarly passes out of the Royal family to a son of Viscount Severn, would the fact that that the subsidary ranks to the new Dukedom of Edinburgh were an Earldom and a Viscounty, rather than an Earldom and Barony like the Kent Dukedom has, make the title more senior or important? (I hope that makes sense!)

The rank of a subsidiary title will only be reflected in the heir apparent's courtesy, as far as I can tell. Rank in the order of precedence is usually determined by the date of the title's creation, so it wouldn't matter much whether the duke in question held a viscounty or a barony as a subsidiary title.

However, when talking about members of the BRF, it is the Queen's perogative to set the order of precedence as she sees fit.

When Alexander Windsor becomes Duke of Gloucester and George Windsor becomes Duke of Kent, these two titles will indeed pass out of the realm of "Royal Dukedom".. but both have earldoms as the senior subsidiary titles, and both have baronies for further use as courtesies (for the eldest grandson).

The unknown is whether The Prince Edward will retain his current titles and gain the dukedom of Edinburgh in its entirety (i.e. Earl of Merioneth, Baron Greenwich), or just be given the ducal title and keep the Earldom of Wessex and Viscounty Severn.

Regardless of the titles Edward is given, however, the Lord James, Viscount Severn will become a courtesy Earl on his father's elevation (either Earl of Wessex or Earl of Merioneth).

The presence of a viscounty as opposed to a barony doesn't make one title more senior than the other.. when viewed from the date of creation, the new Duke of Edinburgh title will not be nearly as senior as those of Gloucester and Kent.. but the man himself will be much more senior in his proximity to the throne.

Originally Posted by Lord Pemberley

3. It also made me wonder why no one in the Royal Family has a Royal Marquessate - either as a main title or as a subsidary one? Has there ever been a Royal Marquess?

I don't believe marquessates have ever been quite as popular in Britain as earldoms have been. Nevertheless, there have been several royal marquessates over the course of history:

In England:

I suppose the first Royal Marquess was also the first hereditary peerage ever given to a woman - Anne Boleyn, Marquess of Pembroke.

Historians cannot be sure exactly how the title ceased to exist, and there are 3 possibilities: a) it merged with the crown on Anne's marriage to Henry VII - b) it was forfeited on 15 May 1536, when she was found guilty of high treason - or c) it became extinct on 19 May 1536, when Anne died without a male heir.

Whether this could be considered a true "Royal Marquessate" I guess depends on how you perceive it.

George II was created 1st Duke of Cambridge, Marquess of Cambridge, Earl of Milford Haven, Viscount Northallerton and Baron Tewkesbury in 1706.

Great Britain:

Prince Frederick of Wales (son of George II) was created 1st Duke of Edinburgh, Marquess of the Isle of Ely, Earl of Eltham, Viscount of Launceston and Baron of Snaudon in 1726.

Prince William (son of George II) was created Duke of Cumberland, Marquess of Berkhamstead, Earl of Kennington, Viscount Trematon and Baron Alderney in 1726.

Scotland:

James Stewart (son of James III) was created Marquess of Ormond at his baptism in 1476. He was later created Earl of Ross (1481) and Duke of Ross (1488).

Charles I of England was created Duke of Albany, Marquess of Ormond, Earl of Ross and Lord Ardmannoch at this baptism on 2 December 1600.

United Kingdom:

This is another questionable "royal" marquessate.. but HSH Prince Adolphus, Duke of Teck, the brother of Queen Mary, was created 1st Marquess of Cambridge, Earl of Eltham and Viscount Northallerton in 1917. He took the surname Cambridge at the same time the BRF became the House of Windsor.

He was married to the daughter of the Duke of Westminster, and while not strictly a member of the BRF, he was the brother-in-law of the King.. so I guess his title could be considered "royal" in some fashion.

His son George, succeeded as 2nd Marquess, but the titles became extinct when he died without male heirs.

Originally Posted by Lord Pemberley

4. Correct me if I am wrong but my understanding is that the primary reason for the Royal Dukes having more than one title is to represent that the UK is composed of several consituent countries (i.e they have a title representing England, Scotland and (Northern) Ireland) however I was thinking that, particularly in this day and age, if this is to be truly representative (or as representative as a titled member of a 'Royal' Family can be!) shouldn't there also be a title to represent Wales? I mean, I know the Duke of Cambridge will presumably eventually be invested with the title Prince of Wales when he becomes heir to the throne, but at present (despite living in Wales, which only adds to the irony) he went from being someone whose official title was "of Wales" to someone whose official titles no longer mention Wales? How much harder would it have been for the Queen to have added in the Viscounty of Bangor or the Marquessate of Wrexham (for example)?

I don't think it would have been hard at all for the Queen to create a Welsh title for Prince William, but as the heir to the throne is The Prince of Wales, his title alone denotes the historic importance of the position of Wales within the UK.

Prince William did not lose his designation "of Wales", even though his new style is HRH The Duke of Cambridge.. and as you point out, eventually he will be The Prince of Wales in his own right.. at least everyone expects he will be invested with that title when Charles becomes king.

Besides.. a princely title trumps all the others anyway, regardless of their location.. and I'm not so sure the Welsh people would welcome another BRF title in Wales.. maybe someone else can better explain, but at one time the Welsh wanted their independence from the UK.. I haven't heard what the recent feeling is on the matter..

Welcome to the Forum, Lord Pemberley :)

[Daz_Voz]

The wife of the King is always the Queen Consort, but the husband of the reigning Queen is not a King.
Is this covered by law or just a matter of unwritten convention?

[MRSJ]

Originally Posted by Daz_Voz

The wife of the King is always the Queen Consort, but the husband of the reigning Queen is not a King.
Is this covered by law or just a matter of unwritten convention?

No one can be higher then the reigning monoarch- a King is higher then a Queen thus when a Queen is reigning there can not be a King ( I believe it's the rules/law)

Others here may be able to add to this but I believe Queen Victoria wanted to make her husband Albert a King Consort but would have needed an act of parliament and they refused ....

[HM Queen Catherine]

Originally Posted by Daz_Voz

The wife of the King is always the Queen Consort, but the husband of the reigning Queen is not a King. Is this covered by law or just a matter of unwritten convention?

Technically, its a matter of convention.

The title "King Consort" does exist, but has seldom been used or given to the husband of a Queen Regnant. It is only a symbolic title and has no constitutional function. "Prince Consort" is generally what has been used in the past.

In the event that a king consort were to outlive his wife, he would remain a king in the same way that a queen dowager remains a queen after being a consort. He would retain the style His Majesty and would remain a member of the royal household, but he would not have any succession rights to the throne.

Such was the position of Francis, Duke of Cadiz. He was the husband of Queen Isabella II of Spain, and was formally King Consort of Spain. Isabella abdicated in 1870, and their son Alfonso XII became King in 1874.. Francis' title while his wife was monarch was HM The King of Spain, Duke of Cadiz. After her abdication (until his death in 1902) his title was HM King Francis of Spain, Duke of Cadiz.

The only instance of a King Consort in English history was during the reign of Queen Mary I, who granted the title of King Consort to her husband, Philip II of Spain. Of course, that title did not grant him any sovereign rights or rule in England, but most of the proclamations and documents from Mary I's reign were issued in both of their names, as King and Queen of England.

When Mary, Queen of Scots, married Lord Darnley, she proclaimed him "King of Scots" on the evening before their wedding. Legally, she was not able to grant him this title without the consent of the Scots Parliament, but the title was never formally challenged. That title too, did not grant him any rights of rule or succession.

Queen Victoria did want to make Albert "King Consort", but Parliament refused because he was a foreigner. She made him Prince Consort instead in 1857.

In the UK, there is no automatic right of the consort of a Queen Regnant to receive any title. Elizabeth II did not create the Duke of Edinburgh a Prince of the United Kingdom until 1957, and she has never formally designated him as "Prince Consort" or "King Consort".

Other monarchies throughout the world have their own precedents and traditions.. in Cambodia, for instance, they have used the title "King-father", in the same way the British use "Queen Mother". That title applied to a King Consort who outlived the Queen Regnant and was the father of the succeeding monarch.

[auntie]

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen

You cannot call her Princess Diana as she was not a Princess by blood.
People constantly find links between Diana and Catherine just because they can.
You're making a seriously OTT comment there about educated ladies liking horses.

I understood that Diana was officialy called "Diana princess of Wales" after her divorce, the only thing changed was her HRH was removed. As in Sarah duchess of York, and Alexandra princess of Denmark (untill she remarried)

[Cinderella5x]

Originally Posted by auntie

I understood that Diana was officialy called "Diana princess of Wales" after her divorce, the only thing changed was her HRH was removed. As in Sarah duchess of York, and Alexandra princess of Denmark (untill she remarried)

That's all good, but that doesn't mean calling her "Princess Diana" is correct. That's what I think Lumutqueen was referring to.

[Diarist]

Originally Posted by Mia_mae

The story about the allergy has never been confirmed. According to a journalist, Kathy Lette or something, Catherine said to her she was allergic, but she may have been joking.

If true I can see the irony specially someone in her position. It made me wonder if any royal ladies is allergic to flowers, that would be just as unfortunate

I am not sure that Catherine is really allergic to horses - but if this was true, I know that there is effective medication you can take.
Catherine's absence from Royal Ascot may therefore be no more than a reflection that William was on duty back in Wales and Catherine did not want to leave him.

With regard to the Kathy Lette story, I too read what Kathy Lette says took place - Kathy Lette [Australian Journalist and reputedly a strong republican] and her husband, left wing republican lawyer Geoffrey Robinson were both guests at a Celebrity Charity Polo match, in which Prince William was playing. Kathy Lette, [with her instinctive journalist's 'nosiness'!] was walking back to her seat at the polo when she says she came upon a little tent and peered in to see what it was - whereupon she found the then Catherine Middleton watching a TV monitor [which was showing the polo game.] Kathy Lette says she was a bit taken aback to find Catherine all by herself in a hot, stuffy little tent, and invited Catherine to come and join her in the stands. Catherine apparently refused, citing the fact that she needed to concentrate on the Polo match so that she could discuss it in minute detail with William later. There was also suggestion that Catherine had indicated she was 'tucked away' because she was allergic to horses.

Kathy Lette 'told all' in an article she wrote, also suggesting that it was terrible in this day and age that a young woman should even have to sacrifice comfort and sit in a tent simply to study a polo match so that she could discuss it with her man - almost a form of Victorian Subservience to Kathy Lette.

After she published the article, there was widespread comment that in fact nothing was further from the truth - Catherine had chosen the tent for the sake of privacy and her refusal to join Kathy Lette and her husband in the stands was seen as a masterstroke by Catherine to avoid the potential minefield of being seen to socialise with a journalist [and a republican one at that] and her equally Republican left wing husband.....

Thus we don't really know whether Catherine really is allergic to horses but is just very savvy... Certainly, as Kathy Lette chose to write about the incident, in my humble opinion it certainly shows that Catherine had made the right call in avoiding a potential minefield of a trap...........

Hope this helps


Alex

[Princess of Durham]

Kathy Lette, [with her instinctive journalist's 'nosiness'!] was walking back to her seat at the polo when she says she came upon a little tent and peered in to see what it was - whereupon she found the then Catherine Middleton watching a TV monitor [which was showing the polo game.] Kathy Lette says she was a bit taken aback to find Catherine all by herself in a hot, stuffy little tent,

Haha, I just bet she "came upon" the tent. More like she was snooping around and knew that Catherine was in the tent. I'm liking the Duchess of Cambridge more and more as I hear some of these stories. Thanks for sharing.

[Diarist]

Originally Posted by Cinderella5x

That's all good, but that doesn't mean calling her "Princess Diana" is correct. That's what I think Lumutqueen was referring to.

You're quite correct Cinderella that Diana was never a Princess in her own right, although even the BP press office tended to use the term 'Princess Diana' in its briefings during the marriage of the Princess and on this basis I am sure that this privilege can be extended to the honourable members of this forum

Alex

[Diarist]

Originally Posted by Princess of Durham

Haha, I just bet she "came upon" the tent. More like she was snooping around and knew that Catherine was in the tent.......

Ah, Duchess, you and me both! My thoughts and sentiments exactly! It just proves how carefuly royals [or 'nearly royals'] have to be the whole time, thinking what the 'true' purpose of an apparently' harmless' invitation may really be!

Alex

[Molly2101]

Originally Posted by Diarist

Please can I provide a little bit of background information about the flowers?...Alex

Ahhh, thank you very much for this educated insight to the floral gifts. I think it's lovely that people gift the Royal family when they visit anything, particularly if they gift them with something other than flowers (such as paintings, teddy bears etc.) It's a lovely gesture.

Regarding the Princess Diana conversation, this may sound VERY uneducated when it comes to the Royal family, but why is Princess Michael not called by her first name? Or is she called Marie-Christine, Princess Michael of Kent, but out of habit she has always been Princess Michael. Does it mean that if Charles did not have the Prince of Wales title, Diana would have been Princess Charles of Windsor, like Sarah would have been Princess Andrew of Windsor and Sophie, Princess Edward of Windsor had they not been given titles upon their marriage? I understand that their full titles include(ed) their husband's "Prince" title.

[Lumutqueen]

Originally Posted by Molly2101

Regarding the Princess Diana conversation, this may sound VERY uneducated when it comes to the Royal family, but why is Princess Michael not called by her first name? Or is she called Marie-Christine, Princess Michael of Kent, but out of habit she has always been Princess Michael. Does it mean that if Charles did not have the Prince of Wales title, Diana would have been Princess Charles of Windsor, like Sarah would have been Princess Andrew of Windsor and Sophie, Princess Edward of Windsor had they not been given titles upon their marriage? I understand that their full titles include(ed) their husband's "Prince" title.

She's Princess Michael because that's her husbands title. If he was a Duke of something, she's be Duchess M-C etc.
I don't think they would have been, of Windsor. But luckly they've been given titles so they're known by that.