Royal Dukes, Royal Duchies and Royal Ducal Titles

[Stefan]

Sophie became a Princess of the UK wither her marriage. But the difference is that she is not styled as this Her style is HRH the Countess of Wessex the same as the official style of her husband is HRH the Earl of Wessex since his marriage. The same for Prince Andrew who is always styled as HRH the Duke of York officially. often they are reffered to as prince Edward, Earl of Wessex etc. but this is not the official style since the got their other titles.

[branchg]

Originally Posted by Royal Fan

I Thought they retained both the Style Prince and Duke.

They do. However, HRH Prince/Princess of the UK is a style and rank signifying precedence and place to The Sovereign as their children or male-line grandchildren (or their wives or a consort like Philip). It is entirely a personal honour granted by The Sovereign.

Once elevated to the Peerage, that becomes their title since their descendants eventually no longer hold royal rank, but remain Peers of the Realm.

[Osipi]

Can someone please give me a reasonable and good explanation of why in some reports such as from the DM, Camilla is still referred to as Camilla Parker-Bowles? I've yet to see a woman that has divorced and remarried that would still be referred to by her ex-husband's surname and I think its rather an insult to Camilla. Charles and Diana were referred to as the Waleses so wouldn't it be also Camilla's surname now too?

[MAfan]

I guess it depends from where you are...I don't think in Britain they still call her Camilla Parker Bowles, but here in Italy they do...and more, each time they "create" new names and titles for her...
maybe in the USA they do the same...

[Lumutqueen]

I still call her Camilla Parker Bowles. I don't know why, i've just never known her as anything different.
I don't see why she shouldn't be Camilla Windsor, then again she should be Princess of Wales, but has chosen not to out of respect for Diana.

Maybe she stays Camilla Parker Bowles, to keep a link to Sara and Tom.
She could become Camilla Shand, her maiden name.

[RoyalistRiley]

Same here. If I see her on TV, I instinctivley go "Oh, look at Camilla Parker Bowles with Prince Charles" without a second thought.

[MAfan]

So, it seems I'm the only one not to call her Camilla Parker Bowles, but "The Duchess of Cornwall" or just "Camilla"...

[Vecchiolarry]

Hi,

Well, several people around the world, including that stupid Larry King, still call Diana - "Lady Di"....
It's bad enough that most still call her 'Princess Diana' (which I can sort of understand) but Lady Di ??? Come On!!!

Larry

[Iluvbertie]

I too call her The Duchess of Cornwall or Camilla but then again whenever I talk to any of my friends who have remarried I never call them by their first married name either. I think that to do so I would find myself with fewer friends through refusing to acknowledge their second or later marriages. I would regard it as simply bad manners to not acknowledge a second or later marriage but insisting on referring to someone by the new married name rather than their first married name.

[Iluvbertie]

I have no problem with Lady Di as that was her maiden name and all woman reserve the right to keep their married names.

I have major problems when I here the name Princess Diana as I keep wanting to ask them who they are talking about because they can't be referring to the first wife of Prince Charles as that woman was never Princess Diana - The Princess Charles, The Princess of Wales, The Duchess of Cornwall etc but never Princess Diana.

[Lumutqueen]

She was Lady Diana Spencer before she married. This is how she was refferred to by the press when she was courting the prince.
Why is it strange that people still call her Princess Diana?

[Vecchiolarry]

Hi,

Yes, I know that she was lady Diana Spencer before she was married; and therefore that was her maiden name.
But, it wasn't Lady Di as though she were a circus act....

And, the problem with 'Princess Diana' is that she was never that - it's the media & lazy people who called her that.

She was "Diana, Princess of Wales".....

Larry

[Lumutqueen]

Why not shorten it? Saying Lady Diana sounds quite formal, and these are tabloid newspapers.
Diana was called Di within her family.

How many times have you personally called Diana. Diana, Princess of Wales? Too formal for the likes of the papers.

[Lady Marmalade]

Interestingly, enough, the American press called her Princess Diana...and I noticed the British always referred to her by her proper title, Diana, Princess of Wales.

In terms of Camilla, I do the same thing... I guess jsut from years of doing it. In my head she is thought of as the Duchess of Cornwall.. When I speak about her, it is Camilla Parker Bowles.... Old habits die hard..lol...

[Connie Cutmantle]

I generally always refer to Diana as either Diana, Princess of Wales or Diana when it is obvious to whom I referring! I absolutely hate the way people always called her Princess Diana....it was totally wrong! I thought her pet name within her family was Dutch?

As for Camilla, I always refer to her as the Duchess of Cornwall or as Camilla when it is obvious to whom I am referring!

I sometimes wander if the Daily Mail isn't perhaps sometimes referring to the Duchess of Cornwall by her former name of Camilla Parker Bowles in some rather perverse tactic to 'keep' reminding its readers of her past! It is utterly incorrect and reeks of subversion IMHO! Then again nothing less would surprise me with that vile, pernicious, chattering-classes obsessed rag that tries to pretend it is not a tabloid!!!

As for individual members of the public....I guess it doesn't matter how you refer to Camilla, as long as you are not using her former name in a way akin to that which I believe the Dail Mail uses!


As for 'Lady Di'......it is absolutely awful and totally inappropriate IMHO for any news presenter/newspaper to use this sobriquet...... even Diana's closest friends never referred to the Princess as Di in public as far as I know. I still can not fathom the audacity of the media to use such a name and the 'Lady' adage was just plain wrong after July 29th 1981 just as 'Princess Diana' was always wrong! I am sorry to have gone on a bit about this but it really does stick in my craw that so many people could never get her name correct!

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Connie Cutmantle

As for 'Lady Di'..

Actually it isn't wrong to say that she was still Lady Diana Spencer after her marriage because, just like every other woman, she is still able to use her maiden style and titles but if so the Spencer should be included.

[branchg]

The Palace often referred to her as "Princess Diana" as well, so it's safe to say The Queen never objected since Diana was the mother of a future king and a future Queen Consort.

After the divorce, they referred to her as "The Princess", which technically she no longer was with the loss of her royal rank.

[SLV]

Regardless of the other additions, princess, Lady, etc. I think it is horrible to call her Di. It sounds exactly like 'die' and given what happened to her, I consider that an awful thing to do.

[Helvellyn]

Well, what an interesting thread! It took me some time to read through it all, but it was worth it. Afraid I'm going to refer back to some old posts to add some points, or make the odd correction. The length of this thread certainly shows that titles are complicated.

Originally Posted by Lady Marmalade

Cornwall - the Scottish dukedom automatically bestowed by birth to the eldest son of the sovereign.

I'm surprised nobody picked up on this, as Cornwall is an English Dukedom. It is conferred automatically on the male heir of the Sovereign alongside the Scottish Dukedom of Rothesay (which has the subsidiary titles Earl of Carrick and Baron Renfrew). The male heir (current the Prince of Wales) is also the Great Steward of Scotland and Lord of the Isles.

Interestingly, the Scottish titles are used in Scotland only, with the English titles elsewhere. Since Prince Charles was created Prince of Wales (and Earl of Chester) it is the Princely title he uses outside Scotland, but in Scotland he is known as the Duke of Rothesay (and Camilla as Duchess of Rothesay).

When Charles becomes King then William will automatically become Duke of Cornwall and Duke of Rothesay (plus Duke of X if he is granted another title in the meantime). It requires an Act of Parliament to create him Prince of Wales (and Earl of Chester).

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

The announcement at the time of Edward's marriage was very clear as seen in this report from the BBC at the time BBC NEWS | Special Report | 1999 | 06/99 | royal wedding | Wessex titles for Edward and Sophie

It has also been agreed that Edward will also become Duke of Edinburgh after the death of his mother, the Queen, and his father, Prince Philip, who currently holds the dukedom.

To bring the Duke of Edinburgh inheritance up again, as pointed out here the title will have to regranted to Edward after the death of both the Queen and Phillip. If Phillip dies first then Charles will be Prince of Wales and hold the Dukedoms of Cornwall, Rothesay and Edinburgh. The only question would be whether he'd use Edinburgh as a title. If he did, it'd likely only be in Scotland (e.g. Duke of Rothesay and Edinburgh).

I think we can realistically expect it be recreated for Edward after it merges into the Crown, to honour the wishes of his parents (unless we reach the hypothetical situation whereby it's inherited by Harry, but the Crown has passes to a daughter of William's). One reason that has not been mentioned is that Edward has become heavily involved in the Duke of Edinburgh's Award scheme. I'd imagine that in time he will become the figurehead for the scheme after his father, so this would be another reason for him to be granted the title (most likely by King Charles III).

One point here though is whether subsidiary titles would be granted with this creation, or if the titles Earl of Wessex and Viscount Severn would be regranted with the Dukedom. If just the Dukedom of Edinburgh is granted, then I believe Edward would be both Earl of Wessex and Duke of Edinburgh (separate creations), so James would still carry the courtesy title Viscount Severn (subsidiary title of Earldom of Wessex). If the Dukedom was granted with new subsidiary titles, then Edward could hold a Dukedom, two Earldoms, a Viscountcy and a Barony!

Originally Posted by branchg

She only holds it as a style, "Her Majesty the Queen, Duke of Lancaster", while in the duchy on official business.

Whilst the use of Duke of Lancaster by The Queen as a style in the Duchy (Her Majesty the Queen, Duke of Lancaster) has been mentioned I'm surprised nobody mentioned that in the Channel Islands she uses the style Duke of Normandy, and on the Isle of Man the style Lord of Man. The former is still used in the Channel Islands as they were part of the Duchy of Normandy. Between the reigns of William I and John the King of England was also Duke of Normandy. When John lost Normandy the Channel Islands were the only remaining part of the Duchy. It is also the Channel Islands (and the Isle of Man) are dependencies of the Crown and not actually part of the UK (though the UK looks after their defence, foreign affairs, etc).

When the King's Own Royal Border Regiment, the King's Regiment and The Queen's Lancashire Regiment merged they adopted the title The Duke of Lancaster's Regiment in honour of the monarch, and to reflect the fact that the recruiting area of the regiment in a large part covers Duchy, or former Duchy, lands. The Queen is also Colonel in Chief of the Regiment.

Originally Posted by btsnyder

I've often wondered why Princess Anne declined a peerage for her husbands.

Whilst this was answered by branchg in post #94, many people forget though that Angus Ogilvy declined an Earldom on his marriage to Princess Alexandra of Kent.

If Anne did not hold the title The Princess Royal then she would be styled HRH The Princess Anne, Mrs Timothy Laurence. Prior to being created The Princess Royal in 1987 she was styled HRH The Princess Anne, Mrs Mark Phillips.

Originally Posted by Osipi

Can someone please give me a reasonable and good explanation of why in some reports such as from the DM, Camilla is still referred to as Camilla Parker-Bowles? I've yet to see a woman that has divorced and remarried that would still be referred to by her ex-husband's surname and I think it’s rather an insult to Camilla. Charles and Diana were referred to as the Waleses so wouldn't it be also Camilla's surname now too?

Camilla is officially HRH The Princess of Wales, though because of its association with Diana she uses the title HRH The Duchess of Cornwall. In Scotland she is HRH The Duchess of Rothesay, and Diana was known as that in Scotland as well, though of course to the rest of the world the Wales title is the one that was used.

When Charles becomes King, Camilla automatically becomes Queen. It has been stated however that she will be styled Princess Consort, and at the Coronation of Charles Camilla will not be crowned. Now this could change if it is many years until Charles becomes King, but Camilla will be Queen even if she chooses not to be styled as such. This was one of the reasons for the abdication of Edward VIII because there was nothing to stop Wallis Simpson becoming Queen Wallis if she married Edward as King. Camilla will not be styled Queen though because to too many people it is something they assume Diana should have been entitled to!

We've obviously seen this use of lesser titles in the case of the Earl of Wessex's children - they are officially Princess Louise and Prince James, but at their parent's requests they are styled as the children of an Earl.



To come round to what titles might be granted to William and Harry, I think it likely they would be granted Dukedoms on any marriage for either of them. In part this would be because if not then their wives would be styled HRH Princess William and HRH Princess Henry respectively!

It has been covered lots of times that the Dukedom of Cumberland and Teviotdale, and the Dukedom of Albany are unavailable because they could be restored to the descendants of the holders who had them deprived in 1919. They and their heirs weren't stripped of the titles, which I believe may have required an Act of Attainder.

It could be possible that a new Dukedom of Cumberland be created, separate to Cumberland and Teviotdale, as the latter title was created as in the Peerage of Great Britain in 1799. Therefore, a new creation for the Dukedom of Cumberland could be created in the Peerage of the United Kingdom. One reason this could be unlikely is that Cumberland does not exist as a county anymore, and Edward did receive some stick in the press for reviving the Wessex earldom after nearly a 1000 years!

Albany was created in the Peerage of the United Kingdom, so any new creation of this title is even less likely. Clarence is considered in some quarters an unlucky title, so this one may also not be re-created.

This leaves Cambridge and Sussex as Royal Dukedoms that could be conferred. Given that Harry is pursuing a career in the army I'm more inclined that this title could go to him, based on the historical associations of Prince George (grandson of George III) who succeeded his father as Duke of Cambridge in 1850 and was Commander-in-chief of the British Army from 1856 to 1895.

Sussex might be favoured for William as it is probably the least senior Royal Dukedom that has been used, so the fact it will be in time be joined (and superseded) by other titles might make it a choice. For example, when Charles becomes King then William will automatically become Duke of Cornwall (Peerage of England) and Duke of Rothesay (Peerage of Scotland), so would be styled HRH The Duke of Cornwall, Rothesay and Sussex. An alternative might be to grant him a newly create Welsh or even Northern Irish title. However, these would have no historical link unless it was decided to use one of the "bastard" titles, e.g. Duke of Monmouth. An alternative could be to create him Duke of Armagh, last granted as a subsidiary title to the Dukedom of Albany (as an Earldom).

I don't believe William would just be created an Earl in anticipation of eventually taking the Cornwall and Rothesay titles, as this would create an interesting dilemma with regards to a title for Harry, i.e. could he be created a Duke if his elder brother were just an Earl? As William has already received the Garter at such an early age I don't think he'd be denied a Dukedom on marriage.

A final option for William could be to use the titles that have been conferred in "joint" Dukedoms as a standalone one for him. By this I mean either Avondale or Strathearn (Though Teviotdale could theoretically also be granted as a standalone Dukedom of the UK).

[Helvellyn]

Oh, I forgot to add that I find the subsidiary titles of Royal Dukedoms just as interesting. It is now the norm that each title is from a different part of the UK.

• Prince Philip is Duke of Edinburgh (Scotland), Earl of Merioneth (Wales) and Baron Greenwich (England).
• Prince Andrew is Duke of York (England), Earl of Inverness (Scotland) and Baron Killyleagh (Northern Ireland).
• Prince Edward is Earl of Wessex (England) and Viscount Severn (Wales and England), and is due to be created Duke of Edinburgh (Scotland) in the future.
• Prince Richard is Duke of Gloucester (England), Earl of Ulster (Northern Ireland) and Baron Culloden (Scotland).
• Prince Edward is Duke of Kent (England), Earl of St Andrews (Scotland) and Baron Downpatrick (Northern Ireland).

So what subsidiary titles are available to go with future Royal Dukedoms? Quite a few actually, though a number of these have passed outside of the Royal family in the past. The most recent to do so would be Milford Haven (Marquess), which in the past was granted as an Earldom (under the Dukedom of Cambridge) to the future George II by Queen Anne!

Subsidiary titles that I have worked out as still being available are: -

• Berkhampstead (England) - granted as an Earldom several times, most recently as a subsidiary title of the Marquessate of Carisbrooke.
• Carisbrooke - granted as a Marquessate for the former Prince Alexander of Battenberg.
• Eltham (England) - granted as an Earldom several times, most recently as a subsidiary title of the Marquessate of Cambridge.
• Kennington (England) - granted as an Earldom, last as a subsidiary title to the Dukedom of Cumberland granted to Prince William (son of George II).
• Launceston (England) - granted as a Viscountcy several times, most recently as a subsidiary title of the Marquessate of Carisbrooke.
• Northallerton (England) - granted as a Viscountcy at least twice, most recently as a subsidiary title of the Marquessate of Cambridge.
• Tewkesbury (England) - granted as a Barony. Available following death of 7th Earl of Munster in 2000, descended from an illegitimate son of William IV.
• Trematon (England) - granted as a Viscountcy several times, most recently as a subsidiary title of the Earldom of Athlone.

This obviously raises the question as to what subsiduary titles can be used from Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland to go with future Royal Dukedoms. Again, Strathearn, Avondale and Teviotdale could possibly be used as Scottish Earldoms (with an English Dukedom), but a Barony from Wales or Northern Ireland would still be required. Will be interesting to see what the experts come up with at the time, as I'm sure there must be some historical subsidiary titles they can find.