Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[loonytick]

The difference with Louise is that she isn't a Princess nor a substantive title holder so it would be incorrect for her to use 'Wessex'. That is reserved for Edward himself and then James but not his daughters who use their surnames.

Lady Louise isn't 'of Wessex' now and won't be 'of Edinburgh' if that eventuates. She is simply Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor.

James is the same - Lord James Mountbatten-Windsor, Viscount Severn. He isn't The Viscount Severn. His father is.

So, if no letters patent are issued for Harry’s child and the baby is born without an HRH, should we expect the child to be styled Lord/Lady (first name) Mountbatten-Windsor, not (first name) Sussex?

 

[Osipi]

I believe that they would sign their names like Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor does. She goes by Louise Windsor at school. Perhaps after Charles becomes King and nothing is changed and the Sussex kids are HRH, then they would use Sussex like Harry and William used Wales. I believe George goes by George Cambridge at school.

 

[Gawin]

You ask an interesting question. George and Anne were referred to as the Prince and Princess of Denmark but it seems their children weren't.

Their son William Duke of Gloucester is called "Prince William" in the authoritative Complete Peerage.

https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/271 [see Gloucester in Vol. 5, p. 743].

But the 1949 edition of Burke's Peerage calls Anne's other son "Lord George" and her daughters "Lady Mary" [she had two daughters by that name] and "Lady Anne Sophia."

https://archive.org/stream/burkesgenealogic1949unse#page/n265/mode/2up

All five children are buried in Westminster Abbey and the burial register calls them "Lord/Lady" except for William who is called "HRH."

https://archive.org/details/marriagebaptism02chesgoog/page/n234

See pp. 217 (Lady Mary & Lady Ann-Sophia), 226 (Lady Mary), 230 (Lord George), and 246 (HRH William).

I just discovered Francois Velde discussed the titles of Queen Anne's children on his Heraldica website:

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/prince_highness.htm#Anne

He also discusses foreign titles but only as they relate to British subjects, not members of the Royal Family. For example, he doesn't include the fact that the Hanoverian Kings were also Electors of Hanover, a foreign title:

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/foreigntitles.htm

 

[Mbruno]

I believe that they would sign their names like Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor does. She goes by Louise Windsor at school. Perhaps after Charles becomes King and nothing is changed and the Sussex kids are HRH, then they would use Sussex like Harry and William used Wales. I believe George goes by George Cambridge at school.

It is not really that complicated. Children of a duke who do not hold a title use their name and family name like everybody else, with the only difference being that they are entitled to also use the honorific Lord/Lady before their names. So Louise will always be (Lady) Louise Mountbatten-Windsor until she gets married and takes her husband's name.


A non-royal who holds a title in the peerage also has a legal name and family name, but its is customary in the UK to be known instead by his title. For example, Robert Crawley, Earl of Grantham, is formally addressed as Lord Grantham and would probably go by Grantham at school too. That is also true BTW for the heir to a peerage who holds a courtesy title. For example, Viscount Linley, formally addressed as Lord Linley, could also go by Linley at school, or among his friends.



Princes of the United Kingdom (i.e. HRHs) are in a different category as they don't normally use a family name although , whenever they have to use one, the HRHs who are descendants in male line of QEII and Prince Philip use Mountbatten-Windsor as their legal surname. Princes and princesses who are children of royal dukes follow, I suppose, the custom in the peerage and are known at school by the territorial designation of their fathers' title. That was also the case back in Victorian times when Queen Victoria for example mentioned her cousins as e.g. "George Cambridge" .

 

[Pranter]

So, if no letters patent are issued for Harry’s child and the baby is born without an HRH, should we expect the child to be styled Lord/Lady (first name) Mountbatten-Windsor, not (first name) Sussex?

Unless Meghan/Harry say otherwise when Charles is King, The Sussexes children will be elevated to HRH. So the titles could change after X years.



LaRae

 

[Mbruno]

Given that Queen Anne was mentioned as The Princess Anne of Denmark in several sources, such as The London Gazette on 19th July 1688, we should assume that this was the title she was formally known as. Before her marriage she was known as HH The Lady Anne.
Many of the customs regarding British royal titles didn't start to come in place until the Hannoverians ascended the throne and brought their German customs with them.

Yes, as I had said before, the English Bill of Rights of 1689 refers to Anne as "HRH Princess Anne of Denmark" and to her sister Mary as " Princess of Orange".



My point was that, in more recent times, foreign princesses who married into the BRF didn't use their foreign titles in the UK. The last example was Princess Marina of Greece and Denmark, who became only HRH The Duchess of Kent in the UK. After her son got married, the Queen allowed her to be known as HRH Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent, but, as far as I understand, that was not a (late) recognition of her status as a princess by birth, but rather it was simply done to distinguish her from her daughter-in-law.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Unless Meghan/Harry say otherwise when Charles is King, The Sussexes children will be elevated to HRH. So the titles could change after X years.



LaRae

It doesn't have to be Harry or Meghan saying anything - it could be Charles himself issuing new LPs or making a statement - The King's Will being made known with or without their support.

That is how Louise and James were stripped of their right to HRH - The Queen's Will being made known.

The support of the adults involved would be nice but isn't necessary.

If Charles is serious about reducing the size of the BRF then he has to start with his own descendants and he will have four grandchildren by this time next year and probably end up with another one or two.

The Queen has four HRH grandchildren - which allegedly Charles sees as too many and unnecessary so he has to start with his own family or be seen as a hypocrite.

Although there is no actual comment on record from Charles of a smaller royal family, only a comment from a staffer that such a suggestion was made at the first Way Ahead Group meeting in 1992, it has never been confirmed.

Some people point to the balcony at the 2012 Jubilee but that was simply a recreation of the Jubilee balcony after Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee with only The Queen and the Wales branch of the family on the balcony - nothing suggested then about reducing the size of the BRF.

I do think that Harry may very well follow the example of his Uncle Edward. He has seen had hard things are in many ways for his HRH cousins and he knows that his children will be in the same position in time - the irrelevant to the future of the BRF children of the second son. That doesn't mean that the girls aren't much loved but just that their role is to work normally and not attend royal events. His children will be the same.

 

[Iluvbertie]

So, if no letters patent are issued for Harry’s child and the baby is born without an HRH, should we expect the child to be styled Lord/Lady (first name) Mountbatten-Windsor, not (first name) Sussex?

Absolutely.

If no special LPs are issued - and we are approaching the two month mark since the announcement of the pregnancy and the Queen issued the new LPs for William's children at the three week mark after the announcement of Kate's pregnancy - then they will be styled as the children of a Duke.

A daughter would be Lady xxxx Mountbatten-Windsor.

The eldest son would be Earl Dumbarton. Younger sons would be Lord yyyy Mountbatten-Windsor.

 

[Somebody]

If a peeress in her own right has a second title, may her oldest son use his mother's second title as his courtesy title?

I would think so, I don't see a reason why that would be different for a peeress than a peer.

Edit: It indeed is the case: An example from the 18th century is William Godolphin who first used his father's courtesy title (Viscount Rialton) (his father was the earl of Godolphin) but started using his mother's courtesy title (Marquess of Blandford) when she became the 2nd Duchess of Marlborough. As he died young, he never was the Duke of Marlborough. That honor went to his cousin (as there was no provision/exception made for his sisters to inherit the title).

Had he lived to an older age and had a son it would be the Goldolphin family that would be the Dukes of Marlborough because this didn't happen, it's the Spencers. Both lines stem from the Churchill sisters (daughters of the first duke).

 

[Lilyflo]

If a peeress in her own right has a second title, may her oldest son use his mother's second title as his courtesy title?

You'll need to double check the details with an expert but I think the 2nd Duchess of Marlborough's son had the courtesy title of Marquess of Blandford via his mother's rank. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrietta_Godolphin,_2nd_Duchess_of_Marlborough

 

[JR76]

If a peeress in her own right has a second title, may her oldest son use his mother's second title as his courtesy title?

Alistair Windsor, the son of Princess Alexandra, Duchess of Fife and Prince Arthur of Connaught went by his mother's secondary title Earl of Macduff until he succeeded his grandfather as the Duke of Connaught and Strathearn.

 

[Somebody]

What would be the main issues/concerns if the future king would bestow the title 'duke of Leeds' on one of his children? Would that be at all likely or should we expect them to first use all previously used royal dukedoms before awarding a previously used title by non-royals.

This title became extinct in 1964 and the last holder (12th duke) was a close friend of the queen mother (and from the 5th one onwards they were both descendants of the 1 duke of Leeds (obviously) but also of the 1st duke of Marlborough),

 

[Kataryn]

If a peeress in her own right has a second title, may her oldest son use his mother's second title as his courtesy title?

Yes. Think Countess Mountbatten and her eldest son Norton Knatchbull. As long as his father Lord Brabourne and his grandfather Earl Mountbatten lived, he was styled as Honorable Norton Knatchbull and his mother as Lady Brabourne. When his mother succeeded as Countess Mountbatten, he became Lord Romsey by courtesy. When his father died, he became Lord Brabourne (in his own right, thus this title is higher than the courtesy title) and when is mother died, he became the 3. Earl Mountbatten.

 

[Mbruno]

I have a few questions regarding the title of Prince of Wales.

1) If Prince Charles had predeceased his mother before he had any children, would Prince Andrew have been created Prince of Wales ?

2) If Prince Charles had predeceased his mother after Prince William had been born, would Prince William have been created Prince of Wales ?

3) if Prince Charles had become King and had not had any children, would Prince Andrew have been created Prince of Wales ?

There are historical precedents for situations like ( 1) and (2) where the title of Prince of Wales was bestowed ( e.g. the future Kings Charles I and George IIII), but. as far as I know, there is no precedent for granting the title of Prince of Wales in a situation like (3). What do you think ?

 

[Queen Claude]

As noted, the Prince of Wales title is created so it is not automatic but the reason that it is highly likely that Andrew and William be created Prince of Wales in scenarios 1 and 2 is because they are heirs apparent in those scenarios, heirs apparent can't be displaced in succession except if the heir apparent dies, steps aside or is forced out.

In scenario 3 Andrew is heir presumptive and could be displaced if Charles had a child.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I have a few questions regarding the title of Prince of Wales.

1) If Prince Charles had predeceased his mother before he had any children, would Prince Andrew have been created Prince of Wales ?

As Prince Andrew would, in this scenario, have become the heir apparent and been the eldest living son of the monarch, he would immediately have become Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay etc. No doubt, after some suitable interval The Queen would then have created him Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester.

There are two precedence for this - Henry VIII and later Charles I. Both had older brothers who died leaving them to inherit and both were then created Prince of Wales as well as automatically, on the death of their older brothers becoming Dukes of Cornwall.

George V is another who was born the second son but ended up Prince of Wales and then King but, of course, his older brother didn't live long enough to be created Prince of Wales.

2) If Prince Charles had predeceased his mother after Prince William had been born, would Prince William have been created Prince of Wales?

The precedence we have for this scenario is George III who was created Prince of Wales by his grandfather less than a month after the death of Frederick, Prince of Wales. I suspect that Her Majesty would have waited a bit longer simply because she would be mourning her eldest son whereas George II didn't mourn his eldest son.

An even earlier precedent goes back into the very earliest of Princes of Wales. When Edward, the Black Prince, died his son, Richard II was very quickly created Prince of Wales.

3) if Prince Charles had become King and had not had any children, would Prince Andrew have been created Prince of Wales ?

No.

Andrew would only ever have been heir presumptive in this scenario so it wouldn't have be proper to create him Prince of Wales. He also wouldn't have been Duke of Cornwall as he wouldn't have been the eldest son of the monarch.

Charles II didn't create his brother, James II and VII, as Prince of Wales even though James was the heir presumptive throughout Charles' reign. George IV also didn't create either of his younger brothers, who were his heir presumptives during his reign (Frederick, Duke of York until 1828 and then William, Duke of Clarence - later William IV).

 

[Mbruno]

Thanks, Queen Claude and Iluvbertie, for your insightful comments.



So the rule was that the heir apparent (according to male-preference primogeniture) was normally created Prince of Wales, but that didn't hold for an heir presumptive (e.g. a brother of a King without living issue of his own).



That begs a different question though. Now that that UK has switched to equal primogeniture, the eldest daughter of a future King, when she is also the King's eldest child, will be the heir apparent (and no longer heir presumptive only). Shouldn't she be created "Princess of Wales" in her own right then ?


That would bring the title of Prince of Wales in line with other titles held by heirs apparent elsewhere in Europe . The Spanish title of Prince of Asturias falls into a slightly different category though because, in Spain, which still uses male-preference primogeniture BTW, any heir to the Crown is automatically AFAIK Prince/Princess of Asturias (both historically and currently by law), regardless of being heir apparent (like Prince Felipe, now Felipe VI) or simply an heir presumptive (like Princess Leonor for example).


Does the title of Prince/Princess of Orange also apply now by law to any heir to the Dutch throne (apparent or presumptive) ? Maybe the Dutch posters can clarify. The question may seem unimportant now that the Netherlands uses equal primogeniture, but a situation can still arise in the future where the heir is the King's sibling and, therefore, an heir presumptive only. Again, in Spain, that person, under the royal decree 1368/1987, would become Prince/Princess of Asturias the moment he/she became the heir and would remain so until he/she was displaced by someone else, but would he/she be Prince / Princess of Orange under the same circumstances ?

 

[Iluvbertie]

We will have to wait and see whether or not a monarch with an eldest daughter would create that daughter as Princess of Wales. George VI, even knowing his wife couldn't have any more children, refused to do that saying that the 'Princess of Wales' was the wife of the Prince of Wales ... not set in law of course but his opinion.

We do know that they haven't changed the law regarding the heir apparent becoming Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay etc although they will get the income of the Duchy of Cornwall (that is in the legislation setting up the Sovereign Grant).

The other issue with creating a female heir apparent 'Princess of Wales' in their own right what title would their husband have? They can't be 'Prince of Wales' of course but they would have to come up with something for them.

Britain tends to take the view that they will deal with the issue when it arises and it won't arise now for decades - not until George is having children and if his first born is a girl and he becomes King - so possibly not an issue for around 50 or 60 years.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

That begs a different question though. Now that that UK has switched to equal primogeniture, the eldest daughter of a future King, when she is also the King's eldest child, will be the heir apparent (and no longer heir presumptive only). Shouldn't she be created "Princess of Wales" in her own right then ?

That would bring the title of Prince of Wales in line with other titles held by heirs apparent elsewhere in Europe . The Spanish title of Prince of Asturias falls into a slightly different category though because, in Spain, which still uses male-preference primogeniture BTW, any heir to the Crown is automatically AFAIK Prince/Princess of Asturias (both historically and currently by law), regardless of being heir apparent (like Prince Felipe, now Felipe VI) or simply an heir presumptive (like Princess Leonor for example).

Does the title of Prince/Princess of Orange also apply now by law to any heir to the Dutch throne (apparent or presumptive) ? Maybe the Dutch posters can clarify. The question may seem unimportant now that the Netherlands uses equal primogeniture, but a situation can still arise in the future where the heir is the King's sibling and, therefore, an heir presumptive only. Again, in Spain, that person, under the royal decree 1368/1987, would become Prince/Princess of Asturias the moment he/she became the heir and would remain so until he/she was displaced by someone else, but would he/she be Prince / Princess of Orange under the same circumstances ?

Any heir (apparent or presumptive) to the Dutch throne is automatically Prince/Princess of Orange by law since 2002. http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0013729/2002-06-12/0/informatie
See Somebody's explanation: http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f17/titles-of-the-dutch-royals-2025-4.html#post2179480

Any heir (apparent or presumptive) to the Spanish throne is automatically Prince/Princess of Asturias by law, as you said, since 1987. http://www.boe.es/buscar/doc.php?id=BOE-A-1987-25284

Any heir (apparent or presumptive) to the Monegasque throne is automatically Hereditary Prince/Princess by law since 2002. http://journaldemonaco.gouv.mc/Jour...relative-aux-Statuts-de-la-Famille-Souveraine

Any heir (apparent or presumptive) to the Luxembourg throne is automatically Hereditary Grand Duke/Duchess of Luxembourg by law since 2012. Décret grand-ducal du 18 juin 2012 portant coordination du Statut de famille du 5 mai 1907. - Legilux

The heir to the Belgian throne is automatically Duchess/Duke of Brabant by law if she/he is the child or grandchild of the sovereign (applicable to males since 1840 and females since 2001).
LOI - WET

The heir to the Liechtenstein throne is automatically Hereditary Prince by law if he is the son or grandson of the sovereign (only males can inherit the Liechtenstein throne).
House Laws of Liechtenstein

In Sweden, Denmark, and Norway, the rules of the title Crown Prince(ss) have not been clarified by law.

The other issue with creating a female heir apparent 'Princess of Wales' in their own right what title would their husband have? They can't be 'Prince of Wales' of course but they would have to come up with something for them.

Britain tends to take the view that they will deal with the issue when it arises and it won't arise now for decades - not until George is having children and if his first born is a girl and he becomes King - so possibly not an issue for around 50 or 60 years.

And it is possible that in Britain in 50 or 60 years, women will be equally entitled to have their titles used by their spouses as titles of men are currently used by their wives. As I have mentioned on other occasions, already in 2016 the (then) government stated their intention to eventually allow all spouses of peers to use courtesy titles.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/p...ments/written-question/Lords/2016-06-13/HL662

 

[Tatiana Maria]

[...] already in 2016 the (then) government stated their intention to eventually allow all spouses of peers to use courtesy titles.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/p...ments/written-question/Lords/2016-06-13/HL662

And more recently, the Minister of Women and Equalities stated that she has written to the current prime minister to raise the issue of inequality in spouses' courtesy titles in the honours system.

http://bit.ly/2T2fcg8

 

[mathmannix]

Thanks! I wonder if Prince Andrew will one day be given a new title, perhaps a Marquessate, with special remainder to his daughters... (I guess the other, probably better, option would be to give titles to Beatrice and Eugenie directly if/when they get married. Or to their husbands, but I think it would be better and more "modern" to give the Princesses their own titles, plus that way they would still keep them if they got divorced.)

why would he be given another title?

He probably wouldn't, but there is precedence of a sort.

Alexander Duff (1849-1912) (who incidentally was a great-grandson of King William IV through his illegitimate daughter) became 6th Earl of Fife upon the death of his father in 1879. He married Louise, the eldest daughter of the future King Edward VII, in 1889, and her grandmother Queen Victoria made him Duke of Fife, etc. two days later. However, they didn't have any sons to survive infancy, only two daughters, and so all his titles were going to become extinct upon his death (including the ones he inherited, as he was the last male-line descendant of the first Earl of Fife.)

So Queen Victoria recreated him 1st Duke of Fife (both titles the same, in the Peerage of the UK) in 1900 with special remainder to his two daughters. (The older one became Duchess of Fife, and the current Duke of Fife is descended from the younger one.)

The exact same title was recreated for the same person just so his daughters could inherit it. It wasn't strictly a royal Dukedom, as he was not a Prince (although in 1905 King Edward made his daughter Louise Princess Royal and granted the two daughters the style Princess.)

 

[Osipi]

One thing I've read recently is that actually the aristocracy is starting to and most probably will be of lesser importance as time passes. Other than within the royal family itself, the days of creating hereditary peers is pretty much over with since the House of Lords reformations.

As time passes, there will be titles and Lords and Ladies but for the most part they're going to be lifetime peerages rather than hereditary peerages.

 

[Gawin]

One thing I've read recently is that actually the aristocracy is starting to and most probably will be of lesser importance as time passes. Other than within the royal family itself, the days of creating hereditary peers is pretty much over with since the House of Lords reformations.

As time passes, there will be titles and Lords and Ladies but for the most part they're going to be lifetime peerages rather than hereditary peerages.

That's true, outside the RF only three hereditary peerages have been created since 1964: Viscount Whitelaw (1983), Viscount Tonypandy (1983), and Earl of Stockton (1984). And hereditary peers no longer have the political power they once had. The UK has finally rejected rule by a hereditary aristocracy, following in the footsteps of the USA, where it was rejected when our government was formed in the 1780s. At that time it was quite a revolutionary concept.

As hereditary peerages become less and less important in the UK I suspect eventually the RF will stop using them as well.

 

[wyevale]

I suspect eventually the RF will stop using them as well.

Talk about chopping off the tree branch on which one is perching -The entire Monarchy is predicated on heredity [as are all families].
The current obsession with 'equality' is absurd - there will ALWAYS be people cleverer, better looking or richer than oneself, it is simply a 'fact of life'...

 

[Osipi]

There also will be hereditary peerages that have survived for generations and will continue to be passed down. Charles Spencer, 9th Earl Spencer has a son that'll eventually be the 10th Earl Spencer. Should the 10th Earl Spencer not have children or only daughters, if things stay the way they are now, I seriously doubt that someone else would ever be created the 1st Earl Spencer again.

They won't fade away into oblivion really any time soon but hereditary peers will become more and more a part of the UK's historic culture much like the nobility and the aristocracy and the monarchy of nations that no longer have a monarchy.

 

[M. Payton]

A thought came to mind now in regards to this, would this be the next step in getting rid of the monarchy all together now? If so, then that is destroying the heritage of the country of which it should be proud of. There is always in life as someone up thread said, People who are more well off and richer in anything then everybody else, that is a fact of life as we all can't be alike now can we?

What is with getting rid of your country's heritage I ask? Each country is different and has it's own traditions to uphold, do we really want the entire world to be like everyone else? I sure don't think so!

 

[Stefan]

There also will be hereditary peerages that have survived for generations and will continue to be passed down. Charles Spencer, 9th Earl Spencer has a son that'll eventually be the 10th Earl Spencer. Should the 10th Earl Spencer not have children or only daughters, if things stay the way they are now, I seriously doubt that someone else would ever be created the 1st Earl Spencer again.

No Problem if the future 10th Earl Spencer will have no sons as he has also a younger brother. Only if the younger brother also has no sons the Title will become extinct-

 

[Lilyflo]

I'm not an expert on the peerage but I think with the older titles, there is usually someone able to inherit even if you have to go back a few generations & forward again to find the 'heirs of the body' specified in the letters patent related to the title. For example, if the 10th Earl Spencer has no male heirs, there's probably a distant cousin somewhere in the world who is next in line.

Here's an example of an 8th cousin inheriting an Earldom. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/10...c-family-lose-title-to-distant-male-heir.html

 

[Mbruno]

That's true, outside the RF only three hereditary peerages have been created since 1964: Viscount Whitelaw (1983), Viscount Tonypandy (1983), and Earl of Stockton (1984). And hereditary peers no longer have the political power they once helf. The UK has finally rejected rule by a hereditary aristocracy, following in the footsteps of the USA, where it was rejected when our government was formed in the 1780s. At that time it quite a revolutionary concept.

As hereditary peerages become less and less important in the UK I suspect eventually the RF will stop using them as well.

The thing is that royal peerages are actually like any other ordinary hereditary peerage after two generations or so at most and, therefore, they end up adding to the stock of aristocratic families over time, except for those peerages that merge back into the Crown or become extinct.



Just to illustrate, over the past three reigns alone (including the current one), peerages bestowed on members of the Royal Family (or people who married members of the RF) have produced at least four new aristocratic families in male line: the descendants of Prince George, Duke of Kent; the descendants of Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester; the descendants of the 1st Earl of Snowdon; and the future descendants of Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex and possibly the future Duke of Edinburgh. Add to that a possible son of Harry and Meghan and his possible future descendants in male line and we will already get to five new families in the British peerage. That is not neglible over time IMHO, even if no other hereditary peerages are created outside the Royal Family.


If British monarchs really wanted to phase out hereditary peerages, they should start giving life peerages only to princes (and, why not, princesses too).

 

[Gawin]

Talk about chopping off the tree branch on which one is perching -The entire Monarchy is predicated on heredity [as are all families].

I said I believed the BRF would eventually stop using hereditary peerages. After all, the royal families of Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Liechtenstein, and Luxembourg do just fine without them. And even within the BRF the practice is now limited to sons of the monarch or future monarch. Antony Armstrong-Jones was given a peerage but Angus Ogilvy, Mark Phillips, and Jack Brooksbank weren't. And members of the BRF are no longer expected to marry into titled families (Catherine Middleton & Meghan Markle, for example).

Why not? Because titles and hereditary peerages simply aren't as important as they once were. It's simply the way the world is progressing.

The current obsession with 'equality' is absurd - there will ALWAYS be people cleverer, better looking or richer than oneself, it is simply a 'fact of life'...

No, the obsession with titles is absurd, which (as I've pointed out), even the British are beginning to realize. And being cleverer or better looking are due to biology or nature, forces outside our control, not to man-made, artificial structures such as a hereditary peerage.

As John Ball, that good Englishman, once said "When Adam delved and Eve span, who then was the gentleman?"