Questions About Titles - Page 28

aria753 · #**541** 07-16-2008, 05:16 PM

Can the Queen give any title she chooses, I have heard of titles that have gone extinct like the Duke of Clarence, though some aren't in the royal family, so is their certain titles she has under possesion to use, I always wondered with the growing family will she run out?

**kimebear** · #**542** 07-16-2008, 06:09 PM

Technically yes. The BRF has been playing a little fast and loose with titles in recent times. There are several ducal titles available such as Clarence, Cambridge and Sussex. However, that did not stop the creation of new titles such as Duke of Windsor and Earl of Wessex. Have no fear. They will certainly never run out.

aria753 · #**543** 07-17-2008, 01:14 AM

Thanks for the responses. It very interesting how it all works.

brandon · #**544** 07-18-2008, 03:10 PM

"Can the Queen give any title she chooses, I have heard of titles that have gone extinct like the Duke of Clarence, though some aren't in the royal family, so is their certain titles she has under possesion to use, I always wondered with the growing family will she run out?"

The Queen can give titles as the "fount of all honours", that's her prerogative. However, if you're referring to hereditary titles beyond her family, those are only given in consultation with the government of the day. If the Queen gives a title in future to any member of her family, it is indeed likely to be among those considered to belong to the reigning house rather than creating something entirely new (such as Wessex, although she may have decided to set a precedent and do some more of that in future). The Clarence title is not "extinct", it's merely not in use for some considerable time now. An extinct title would be one of a family holding an hereditary title where the last legitimate titleholder has died.

wbenson · #**545** 07-18-2008, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brandon

The Clarence title is not "extinct", it's merely not in use for some considerable time now. An extinct title would be one of a family holding an hereditary title where the last legitimate titleholder has died.

That's what happened with the last Duke of Clarence, though. He died with no heirs, so the title is now extinct and can be given again.

brandon · #**546** 07-18-2008, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wbenson

That's what happened with the last Duke of Clarence, though. He died with no heirs, so the title is now extinct and can be given again.

Clarence is a royal title which is peculiar to the reigning dynasty since the middle ages, so its non-use when the current titleholder has died is usually referred to as "reverting to the Crown". Of course all titles of an hereditary nature return to the Crown when they become extinct, but I'm making a distinction between those "ordinary" noble (but non royal) titles that become extinct when the last legitimate holder dies, and those peculiarly royal ones that simply are in non-use because the monarch hasn't granted them again to one of his or her family. Of course you can also rightly point out that non-royal hereditary titles have been granted again to different families over the course of British history (Oxford, Warwick, etc.) but those are still considered otherwise extinct unless and until they're recreated. You could also point to the Kent or Gloucester examples as a royal title that eventually becomes non-royal after a few generations but may die out and therefore become "extinct" and then revert to the Crown, but that case seems unusual to me, compared to the usual use of the word "extinct". I would never think of using the term "extinct" for instance in describing the scenario with the Edinburgh title, which will *revert* to the Crown upon the passing of the present Duke if he survives the Queen, after which it will have to be recreated by Charles III for his brother Wessex.

wbenson · #**547** 07-18-2008, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brandon

I would never think of using the term "extinct" for instance in describing the scenario with the Edinburgh title, which will *revert* to the Crown upon the passing of the present Duke if he survives the Queen, after which it will have to be recreated by Charles III for his brother Wessex.

Because it won't be extinct. It will have merged in the crown (which is different than reverting/extinction). (Barring some weird circumstance, like William having only daughters and he and his father dying before both the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh die, and Harry never having children or having only daughters)

brandon · #**548** 07-18-2008, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wbenson

Because it won't be extinct. It will have merged in the crown (which is different than reverting/extinction). (Barring some weird circumstance, like William having only daughters and he and his father dying before both the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh die, and Harry never having children or having only daughters)

Yes, merged is the absolute correct term. But extinct to me suggests a title that has not only run out of legitimate living heirs but is more likely than not to be never resurrected. With the royal ones, there's always still the off-chance they'll get recreated. The Edinburgh title will actually never descend to William and/or Harry unless something happens like the present Duke dying before the Queen, Charles becoming Duke and then in turn dying before his mother, in which case William would become third DoE in the present creation unless at that point the Queen takes some extraordinary step to make sure it merges already back to the Crown. The normal scenario they've planned is that Charles will recreate the title as monarch once he ascends the throne and Edward will become the first Duke in thatrecreated dukedom, while the young Severn will presumably assume the higher title of Wessex at the same point.

Melania · #**549** 08-06-2008, 05:17 PM

I have a question that I was hoping someone could answer for me. I tried reading through all of the posts in this thread, but didn't see an answer, so here goes...

Prince Michael of Kent doesn't have a peerage (he is not a duke, earl, etc.), so why are his children styled Lord and Lady, and will Lord Frederick's future children be styled Lord and Lady as well?

Thanks if you can answer my question.

**kimebear** · #**550** 08-06-2008, 05:43 PM

The Letters Patent of 1917 accorded the title of Lord/Lady to great grandchildren of a monarch in the male line, but this is where it ends. Lord Frederick's children will currently carry no title.

branchg · #**551** 08-06-2008, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kimebear

The Letters Patent of 1917 accorded the title of Lord/Lady to great grandchildren of a monarch in the male line, but this is where it ends. Lord Frederick's children will currently carry no title.

Technically, Lord/Lady is a courtesy style, not a title. The Letters Patent of 1917 provide that great-grandchildren of a Sovereign in the male line are styled as the children of a Duke.

Melania · #**552** 08-06-2008, 05:59 PM

Ok, thanks for answering my question.

I didn't know that. I'm glad I now know.

Also, someone said earlier in this thread that it would be nice if Prince Michael had been given a peerage, then there would be more titled Windsors to keep up with (or something similar to that effect). I also feel that this would have been a good thing, but if it was going to happen, it would have happened already.

**kimebear** · #**553** 08-06-2008, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by branchg

Technically, Lord/Lady is a courtesy style, not a title. The Letters Patent of 1917 provide that great-grandchildren of a Sovereign in the male line are styled as the children of a Duke.

"shall have and enjoy in all occasions the style and title enjoyed by the children of Dukes of these Our Realms"

While your point is very valid, the original wording is a little ambiguous in its interpretation. Personally I would prefer the continued use of HH Prince of X.

branchg · #**554** 08-06-2008, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Melania

Ok, thanks for answering my question.

I didn't know that. I'm glad I now know.

Also, someone said earlier in this thread that it would be nice if Prince Michael had been given a peerage, then there would be more titled Windsors to keep up with (or something similar to that effect). I also feel that this would have been a good thing, but if it was going to happen, it would have happened already.

The trend has been to grant dukedoms only to the sons of Sovereigns, which then passes to their eldest son. Since the other grandchildren in the male-line also enjoy the style and title of HRH and Prince/Princess of the UK, the intent of the 1917 Letters Patent was to limit these honours going forward.

It is likely new letters patent will eventually be issued once Charles succeeds his mother even further limiting the honours of HRH Prince/Princess of the UK to the children of The Sovereign and the eldest grandchild, with everyone else being Lord/Lady or enjoying whatever Peerages may be created.

branchg · #**555** 08-06-2008, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kimebear

"shall have and enjoy in all occasions the style and title enjoyed by the children of Dukes of these Our Realms"

While your point is very valid, the original wording is a little ambiguous in its interpretation. Personally I would prefer the continued use of HH Prince of X.

It was ambigious because some great-grandchildren already enjoy courtesy styles superior to being Lord or Lady alone, such as the use of secondary earldoms as their style, or may marry a man of inferor rank while retaining their honour as Lady X.

windsorbrides1 · #**556** 08-24-2008, 03:16 AM

In answer to a question about 10 pages ago - lol! No, Charles will not be Duke of Edinburgh. It was announced on the wedding day of the Earl and Countess of Wessex (Edward and Sophie) that when his father passes away Edward will become Duke of Edinburgh. Since Charles is Prince of Wales and will be king, and since Andrew inherited his grandfather's title Duke of York, the Duke of Edinburgh title passed to Edward. It surprised me a bit, since I was thinking they might pass it to Harry. Maybe it wasn't grand enough.

As far as Harry goes, I'm thinking that he will become the Duke of Lancaster. The last person to officially hold the title before it was swallowed up into the monarchy as one of the Queen's official titles, was Henry V.

I think the Queen will pass that title to Henry so that as the second son of the Monarch (like her father) he will hold his own title and lands. Also with the Tudor revial that seems to be going on recently, I think now would be the time to bring back the Lancaster title.

Australian · #**557** 08-24-2008, 03:34 AM

So, when Edward and Sophie become the Duke and Duchess of Edingburgh, what will happen to their current title of Earl and Countess of Wessex? Does it get passed on or will it be kept as an additional title for Edward and Sophie? Or will the Wessex title become defunct?

**kimebear** · #**558** 08-24-2008, 03:36 AM

The Duke of Edinburgh title will go to Charles as the oldest son, being absorbed by the crown when he becomes king. At that time, it is presumed that he will re-create the title for Edward, making Edward HRH The Duke of Edinburgh, the 4th creation of the title. In the UK, titles pass from father to eldest son, not father to whatever son he wants it to go to. With the very public announcement of the wishes of his parents on this matter, it is highly unlikely that Charles will not honor them.

As for Wessex their son James, the current Viscount Severn, will inherit the title of Earl of Wessex. Whether or not the HRH goes with it remains to be seen.

Iluvbertie · #**559** 08-24-2008, 03:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by windsorbrides1

In answer to a question about 10 pages ago - lol! No, Charles will not be Duke of Edinburgh. It was announced on the wedding day of the Earl and Countess of Wessex (Edward and Sophie) that when his father passes away Edward will become Duke of Edinburgh. Since Charles is Prince of Wales and will be king, and since Andrew inherited his grandfather's title Duke of York, the Duke of Edinburgh title passed to Edward. It surprised me a bit, since I was thinking they might pass it to Harry. Maybe it wasn't grand enough.

As far as Harry goes, I'm thinking that he will become the Duke of Lancaster. The last person to officially hold the title before it was swallowed up into the monarchy as one of the Queen's official titles, was Henry V.

I think the Queen will pass that title to Henry so that as the second son of the Monarch (like her father) he will hold his own title and lands. Also with the Tudor revial that seems to be going on recently, I think now would be the time to bring back the Lancaster title.

Actually, Duke of Edinburgh title - Charles will inherit it if Philip dies before the Queen. If Philip dies after the Queen the title will still pass to Charles. Either way Edward can't become Duke of Edinburgh until after Charles becomes king and recreates the title for his younger brother. That was what was announced at the time of Edward's marriage (it does of course assume that Charles, William, Harry and Andrew all outlive the Queen without further legitimate male issue as then Edward would inherit the title rather than have it recreated for him). When Charles becomes king, if his father has predeceased the Queen then the Duke of Edinburgh title will have merged with the crown and be available for regrant.

Andrew didn't inherit the title Duke of York from his grandfather. That title merged with the crown when George VI became King. From 1936 until 1986 no one held that title. Andrew's title is a new grant of the title.

I doubt if Harry would get Duke of Lancaster as the income of the Duchy of Lancaster estate is the means of providing the monarch with a private income in the same way that the Duchy of Cornwall estate provides the income for the heir to the throne. If your scenario was t