Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[NGalitzine]

Which of these titles can the Queen grant?

I would say 7-13, although the only person she has created a prince/princess would be her husband who she created a Prince of the United Kingdom.

 

[kbk]

Yes, this is the thread about British Titles and Styles.

Then why are you pointing here such titles as Emperor, King, Grand Duke, Archduke, Viceroy (!)? Even Pharapoh was mentioned. Which is, by the way, an equivalent of the title of King/Queen.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Then why are you pointing here such titles as Emperor, King, Grand Duke, Archduke, Viceroy (!)? Even Pharapoh was mentioned. Which is, by the way, an equivalent of the title of King/Queen.

A poster asked about where four specific titles "ranked". So I wrote a list of the titles used around the world, and wear the four specific ones ranked.

 

[kbk]

Yes, but the titles of nobility is not exactly the same as the titles of reigning monarchs. And if you consider the former Holy Roman Empire and the German Empire, the question gets more complicated.
The British Peerage system is quite clear and there is no a prince except for the Prince of Wales. So, after the Prince of Wales come the Dukes, after them are Marqueeses, Earls, Viscounts, and Barons. Baronets are not members of any of the existing British Peerages but the Baronetages. And the royal dukes outrank in precedence the non-royal dukes, even if they are ten ages more ancient than them. It is only because they (the so-called royal dukes) are additionall Princes of Blood Royal. But their princely status is not within the Peerage. Prince Philip was created a Prince by the Queen, but his title has nothing to do with the Peerage.
Generally, a duke is higher in rank than a prince in "nobility systems" where there are both princely and ducal titles. Such systems were in alsmot all historical European monarchies. And if you consider the titles of monarchs, we must say first that all sovereigns and republican heads of state are considered equal in rank by the protocol. Although that, traditionally a dukedom was higher in rank than a principality. Ergo, a prince is minor to a duke.

 

[Artemisia]

Well, use of Emperor and King in Lumutqueen's list was very much justified; the British Empire and Kings-Emperors and Queens-Empresses, and of course, the title King is still very much in existence. The list is actually pretty informative and gives an idea of general royal/noble precedence and ranking.


The current British Royal and Nobility titles system looks like this:

Royalty
- King/Queen
- The Prince of Wales
- Royal Dukes and other Peers (such as Earls)
- Princes
- The Princess Royal
- Princesses

Nobility (Peers)
- Dukes/Duchesses
- Marquesses/Marchionesses
- Earls/Countesses
- Viscounts/Viscountesses
- Barons/Baronesses
- Lord of Parliament

Gentry
- Baronets
- Knights
- Scottish Barons (Clan Chiefs)
- Lairds
- Esquires
- Gentlemen

 

[kbk]

Well, use of Emperor and King in Lumutqueen's list was very much justified; the British Empire and Kings-Emperors and Queens-Empresses, and of course, the title King is still very much in existence. The list is actually pretty informative and gives an idea of general royal/noble precedence and ranking.

I think you just twisted my reply, Artemisia...

Royalty
- King/Queen
- The Prince of Wales
- Royal Dukes
- The Princess Royal
- Princes and Princesses

And you simplified this question. For example, Prince Edward is higher than the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent. And the males generally come before the females, even the Princess Royal (except for the Sovereign, if female).

 

[Artemisia]

I think you just twisted my reply, Artemisia...

I certainly didn't intend to do that; just expressed my opinion.
Lumutqueen's reply was very informative for a general picture on royal and noble titles ranking.

And you simplified this question. For example, Prince Edward is higher than the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent. And the males generally come before the females, even the Princess Royal (except for the Sovereign, if female).

Completely agree about Prince Edward; I've edited my post to include other Royal Peers. I'm not entirely certain where The Princess Royal stands; she is certainly higher than other "ordinary" Princesses by blood (such as Beatrice), but possibly lower than "ordinary" Princes (such as Harry). I've edited the post to correct he information as well.

 

[Noble Consort Ming]

Yes, this is the thread about British Titles and Styles.

If that's the case titles like archduke don't need to be on the list. I can see that they should be as a point of reference but in that case other foreign titles should be as well such as non-royal princes which are not equal to British princes(I'm thinking about princes in my home country of Poland, for example, who are not royalty).

 

[Lumutqueen]

If that's the case titles like archduke don't need to be on the list. I can see that they should be as a point of reference but in that case other foreign titles should be as well such as non-royal princes which are not equal to British princes(I'm thinking about princes in my home country of Poland, for example, who are not royalty).

I made a list of royal, noble and gentry titles. I did not tailor this list for this thread as the poster asked where 4 specific titles fit in the grand scheme of titles themselves.

Including titles of non royalty makes no sense in a list of royal titles.

 

[Noble Consort Ming]

I made a list of royal, noble and gentry titles. I did not tailor this list for this thread as the poster asked where 4 specific titles fit in the grand scheme of titles themselves.

Including titles of non royalty makes no sense in a list of royal titles.

Umm.. your first list included a bunch of noble titles which are non royal. Unless you meant to rank them with the assumption that the holders of those titles were also royals.

 

[kbk]

But the Peerage system is not the same as the Order of Precedence and except the Sovereign herself, being a British royal has nothing to do with having automatically a rank among the British nobility. Princes and Princesses of the United Kingdom are such persons by birth or by creation (Prince Philip) but these are not stricte titles of nobility.
And being a royal prince and princess place a person at the top of the social class system, so the full Royal Family members rank above other persons in the order of precedence in the UK. They outrank all peers of the realm and if they are peers themselves, it does not implicate their precedence among the other royals. It is the degree of their kinship to the Sovereign which governs the order of precedence among the RF members. For example, The Prince Edward, who is also an Earl, outranks the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent, who are both Princes of the UK, just like Edward is, but also Dukes. It is because he is a son of the Sovereign and they are the Queen's paternal first cousins. And Prince Michael of Kent comes after Prince Edward, the Duke of Kent not because Edward is a duke and he is not, but because the Duke is older than him. The same rules of the order of birth place the Duke of Gloucester, born 1944, above the Duke of Kent, born 1935. The minor one is 9 years older than the senior one. This is because the Duke of Gloucester's father, Prince Henry, was older than the Prince Geoge, Duke of Kent's father.
So it's important to notice that formally and historically it's not that simple but in practice, generally, it is quite just like Artemisia pointed it out.
And to the non-UK rank of titles, it's even more complicted. In many countries, such as the Holy Roman Empire, Prussia, France and until today in Belgium, there were/are Princes of the Royal House and other princes. In France there were also the so-called Foreign Princes, who were descended from non-solely French houses with at least some degree of sovereignty, adopted into the French society in a privilleged position to the Peers of France. Besides foreign princes, there were princes who were nobles of the realm. There were also dukes with no sovereignty, considered members of the nobility. And they were higher in rank than the Princes. The British case of Royal dukes outranking non-Royal dukes is a very different question and is about the royal dukes's status as royals.
I hope my reply is understandable and I did not lose myself in presentation of my arguments. Pardon for my poor English.

 

[Artemisia]

Peerage system and royal precedence/ranking are indeed quite different. In fact, it is well possible to be a royal and a commoner; Princess Anne, Prince Harry, Princess Beatrice, Princess Eugenie and quite a few other senior royals are, strictly speaking, commoners.

That's why I divided the list into three parts - royal titles, peerage titles, and gentry titles.

Although everything is not simple in case of Peerage titles as well. For instance, they are all ranked according to the dates of their creation and the peerage they were created in (peerage of England, peerage of Scotland, peerage of Great Britain, peerage of the United Kingdom, etc).
The general Order of Precedence for Dukedoms, for instance, is:
- Peerages of the Kingdom of England (in order of creation)
- Peerages of the Kingdom of Scotland (in order of creation)
- Peerages of the Kingdom of Great Britain (in order of creation)
- Peerages of the Kingdom of Ireland (in order of creation)
- Peerages of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Thus, The Duke of Cornwall (created in 1337) has seniority over all other Dukedoms (royal and noble). The Duke of Cambridge is the youngest Dukedom; however, as a royal Dukedom, it is ranked above all other non-royal Dukedoms.
The senior-most noble Dukedom is the title Duke of Norfolk (created in 1483). The Dukedom of Fife is the youngest (non-royal) Dukedom, having been created in 1900, so it's ranked the last.

On the other hand, the titles Earl of Essex (created nine times, all in the peerage of England, in 1139, 1199, 1239,1376, 1461, 1540, 1543, 1572, 1641,and 1661) or Earl of Earl of Shrewsbury (having been created twice, both in the peerage of England, in 1074 and 1442), are some of the oldest extant Earldoms in the Peerage of England. While it is obvious they ranked below Dukedoms and marquessates, their age and sheer historic importance gives (or at least, used to give) them a status far above the rank they would normally enjoy.

 

[kbk]

Actually, the Earldom of Wessex of all creations you mentioned became extinct in their respective years and the current Earldom places only before the Earldom of Strathearn, created last year for Prince William. So, the Prince Edward's possible grandson and third Earl, James' son, would be the most junior Earl in the Peerage of the UK, itself the most junior peerage within the realm. Of course, if there would be no further creations.
Only the Dukedom of Cornwall and Princedom of Wales seem not to extinct when its holder dies, although they certainly merge with the Crown when its holder becomes King.

 

[Artemisia]

It's the Earldom of Essex, not Wessex.
The current Earl of Essex is Paul de Vere Capell, 11th Earl of Essex.
The title of Earl of Wessex in its first creation (and only one, before it was revived for Prince Edward) became extinct in 1071, with the death of William FitzOsbern.

The Earldom of Essex is ranked 13th in the Order of Precedence (because its last creation was in 1661); the first is Earldom of Shrewsbury (last creation in 1442).
The last in the order of precedence is the Earldom of Stockton (created in 1984).

 

[kbk]

Oh, I am so sorry. My entire post should be removed then. I dont know why I saw "Wessex" there instead of Essex. ;-)

 

[Artemisia]

Oh, I am so sorry. My entire post should be removed then. I dont know why I saw "Wessex" there instead of Essex. ;-)

Because the two are very similar and Wessex has a much higher profile.

 

[Royal Smurfness]

I would say 7-13, although the only person she has created a prince/princess would be her husband who she created a Prince of the United Kingdom.

But other than her husband, in practise the Queen only creates Lords/Ladies (when she knights people).

 

[Lumutqueen]

But other than her husband, in practise the Queen only creates Lords/Ladies (when she knights people).

She gave her 4 children titles and her grandson one as well. That's not just lords and ladies.

When the Queen gives a male a knighthood, he is known as Sir not Lord. When a lady is given a knighthood she's known as Dame.

 

[Iluvbertie]

She also gave her brother-in-law a title and offered one to her son-in-law.

 

[Royal Smurfness]

She gave her 4 children titles and her grandson one as well.

I thought they get their titles automatically because of their relationship with the monarch.

 

[NGalitzine]

I thought they get their titles automatically because of their relationship with the monarch.

If you mean their titles as Prince and Princess then yes, they were automatic based on the 1917 Letters Patent as the children of the monarch. Charles and Anne were also born HRH Prince and Princess because of a decision of George VI without which they would have been styled as the children of a duke. Their peerages and Anne's style as Princess Royal were specific grants by the Queen. Only Charles Cornwall dukedom was automatic the moment his mother accended the throne, as the eldest son of the monarch.
Philip is the only person she has specifically created a Prince of the United Kingdom by Letters Patent. George VI had granted him the style of HRH along with the Edinburgh dukedom but had not made him a prince of the UK.
HM has also granted the style of HH to Karim Aga Khan IV, but that is not the same as making him a British prince.

 

[Royal Smurfness]

HM has also granted the style of HH to Karim Aga Khan IV,

HH = His Highness = King ?
Caqn I know the full story behind this?
Isn't the Aga Khan a religious figure for some Muslims?

 

[NGalitzine]

HH = His Highness but not King.
Off topic but I believe the granting of the style of HH comes from the days of the British Raj in India when the Aga Khans were ranked among the princes of India. I am sure you can Google to find out more on the position of the Aga Khans.

FYI the Shah of Iran granted Karim Aga Khan IV the style of HRH for use in Iran.

 

[Artemisia]

HH = His Highness = King ?
Caqn I know the full story behind this?
Isn't the Aga Khan a religious figure for some Muslims?

Yes, Aga Khan is a religious figure. It is a heridiatery title of the Iman of Nizari Ismailism.

The case of Aga Khan is somewhat special. Queen Elizabeth granted him the style "His Highness" in 1957, after the death of his grandfather Aga Khan III. It was a traditional gesture by British Sovereigns since the first Aga Khan allied himself with Britain. For instance, Aga Khan III had himself been granted the style by Queen Victoria in 1885. The style is not hereditary and every new Imam must be given the style by the British Sovereign of the time. It is said that Aga Khan III had personally asked Queen Elizabeth to give the style to his successor.

The present Aga Khan also has the style of Royal Highness, granted to him by the Shah of Iran in 1959; however, since the Iranian Monarchy was overthrown in 1979, Aga Khan has not used that style and is only known with the style conferred to him by Queen Elizabeth - His Highness.

 

[Lumutqueen]

I thought they get their titles automatically because of their relationship with the monarch.

The only title that was automatic was Duke of Cornwall when Prince Charles became heir apparent.

Charles was invested as Prince of Wales, Anne was made The Princess Royal in June 1987, Edward and Andrew both received their titles upon marriage.

 

[scooter]

Yes, But they were all already HRH Prince/ss of the UK from the time of their mother's ascention.

 

[NGalitzine]

Yes, But they were all already HRH Prince/ss of the UK from the time of their mother's ascention.

Well Charles and Anne were born HRH and Prince and Princess because of letters patent issued by their grandfather George VI. But for this decision they would have been styled as Earl of Merioneth and Lady Anne Mountbatten. They would have had to wait until their mothers accession to become HRH Prince and Princess. Andrew and Edward were born during their mothers reign so were automatically HRH and Prince from birth under the 1917 Letters Patent.

 

[Iluvbertie]

HRH Prince/Princess are styles not titles.

It is an automatic style for those who qualify.

Titles are more specific and the only ones that are automatic amongst the Queen's children are Duke or Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles, Prince and Great Steward of Scotland (all became Charles' titles the instant The Queen became The Queen).

 

[Artemisia]

With respect, Iluvbertie, while a Royal Highness is a style, a Prince/Princess is very much a title.
The title of a British Prince or Princess is automatic to those who qualify under Letters Patent 1917. At the same title the title is at the will of the Sovereign, who can grant and revoke it. The Monarch can grant the title of Prince/Princess through Letters Patent, Orders in Council, Royal Proclamations or other expressions of royal will.

 

[Baroness of Books]

What is the difference when a person's family name is part of the title, i.e. Earl Spencer as compared to the Earl of Derby? Would one title be higher than the other in these examples?