Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Mbruno]

I agree in regard to royal titles and peerages for sons and daughters (incidentally, the UK is the only reigning European monarchy which continues to grant them to princes but not princesses).

As for life peerages, a strong argument which can be made in support of continuing to grant royal dukedoms with a hereditary remainder is to point out that other dukedoms in the British peerage are currently hereditary. It could be perceived as strange and contradictory if royal dukes were denied the privilege of passing their peerages to their sons while dukes from far less prestigious families continue to enjoy that very right.

There is a counterargument to this: In an ordinary British noble family, the title is passed on in the direct line only by the heads and future heads of the house. The children of younger sons ordinarily revert to being untitled. And one could argue that royal dukes are not heads of their own noble houses, they are only younger sons of the house of Windsor, of which the Queen or King is the head.

On the different treatments of Royal and non-royal families, the Spaniards solved that by differentiating between Títulos del Reino, which are the ordinary hereditary peerages( which, in the case of dukedoms, also come with Grandeza de España ) and Títulos de nobleza pertenecientes a la Casa Real ( or something like that) , which are defined in the RD 1368/1987 and are the life peerages held by infantes/Infantas by grace of the King.

I guess that one could argue that the main line of the Royal Family ( determined in Spain and in the UK until recently by male preference primogeniture) already has the privilege of inheriting the title of King and the princely titles for the King’s immediate family like his children ( which are the highest honors in the realm). Giving the cadet/collateral lines of that same family additional ducal titles in perpetuity is an added bonus that is not justified. So I don’t think the family is being unfairly treated if it loses hereditary peerages, as long as it keeps the Crown in its senior line.

Giving hereditary peerages to sons and grandsons of Kings was , I suppose, the French custom, which the English imitated as much of the English system of titles is also inspired by old French usage .

 

[Durham]

The Spanish system of life dukedoms sounds like a good compromise.

Yes like much else the English monarchy mirrored French custom. To all intents & purposes English medieval monarchy was French. Unsurprising given The Conquest & geography.

 

[VictoriaB]

I agree in regard to royal titles and peerages for sons and daughters (incidentally, the UK is the only reigning European monarchy which continues to grant them to princes but not princesses).

As for life peerages, a strong argument which can be made in support of continuing to grant royal dukedoms with a hereditary remainder is to point out that other dukedoms in the British peerage are currently hereditary. It could be perceived as strange and contradictory if royal dukes were denied the privilege of passing their peerages to their sons while dukes from far less prestigious families continue to enjoy that very right.

There is a counterargument to this: In an ordinary British noble family, the title is passed on in the direct line only by the heads and future heads of the house. The children of younger sons ordinarily revert to being untitled. And one could argue that royal dukes are not heads of their own noble houses, they are only younger sons of the house of Windsor, of which the Queen or King is the head.

But hereditary peerages are by and large no longer created - except in the case of members of the Royal Family. I know they can be but (according to Wikipedia) only 3 non-royal peerages have been created since 1965 - Viscount Tonypandy (former Speaker of the House), Viscount Whitelaw (Tory Grandee and former Home Secretary) and Earl Stockton (former Prime Minister Harold McMillan).

Each of those new peerages were created in the 1980s. None have been created since.

I don't think any of those three hereditary peerages were necessary, the holder could have been honoured through a life peerage or some other decoration (heaven knows there are enough to choose from) but each had held great offices of state. The situation is very different IMO from someone being created an hereditary peer simply for being born into the right family as occurs with members of the royal family.

Also, in the case of hereditary peerages generally, as much as the original holder of the title did some some service to the crown or country (sometimes) why should someone 200 years later still gain a benefit? If peerages are going to continue, then better they be life peerages that reward someone for doing something not their descendants who inherit without merit.

 

[Mbruno]

There is a counterargument to this: In an ordinary British noble family, the title is passed on in the direct line only by the heads and future heads of the house. The children of younger sons ordinarily revert to being untitled. And one could argue that royal dukes are not heads of their own noble houses, they are only younger sons of the house of Windsor, of which the Queen or King is the head.

Let me comment on your last point. Under agnatic primogeniture, you might argue that there was only one House of France, the Capetian dynasty. However, one speaks of the House of Valois, House of Évreux, House of Anjou, House of Bourbon, etc. and, even more specifically, Bourbon-La Marche, Bourbon-Vendôme, Bourbon-Anjou, Artois, Orléans, etc. Those ramifications mostly came precisely from the French custom of granting hereditary peerages to sons and, later, grandsons of Kings (although the name Bourbon in particular came from the wife of the founder of the dynasty, but that is a separate story).



Eventually, what the French did (and which I think is the right thing to do) was to restrict the Royal House properly to the King, the Fils de France (sons of the King or of the Dauphin, later also of the eldest son of the Dauphin) and the Petit-Fils de France (sons of the Fils de France not in direct line, who used as surname the peerages of their fathers and started a new branch). Everyone else who descended from Hugh Capet in male line, but was not included in the group above was a Prince du Sang ("Prince of the Blood") and the most senior Capetian who was not a Fils de France or Petit-Fls de France was in particular the Premier Prince du Sang.



Since patrilineal families became extinct quite often, lines of the Premier Prince du Sang frequently came eventually in possession of the Crown as was the case with Valois (direct), Valois-Orléans, Valois-Angoulême, then Bourbon-Vendôme, Artois and, depending on where you stand in the French dynastic debate, (Bourbon-)Orléans or Bourbon-Anjou.


In the UK, since there is cognatic succession, the descendants of Queen Elizabeth II (let's call them Mountbatten-Windsor just for the sake of argument) are already a separate family from the Gloucesters and the Kents (Windsor), but, in any case, considering both the paternal lines and the specific maternal lines who came in possession of the Crown (descendants of Queen Victoria and now descendants of Queen Elizabeth II), should we see them as one big royal Hanoverian dynasty descended from George I ? Or should we go further back to James I ? Or Henry VII ? Or William the Conqueror ?



Needless to say, I don't find that reasonable. In the long run, even disregarding the paternal/maternal line distinction, I think that it is more reasonable to see the (Windsor-) Kent or the (Windsor-)Gloucester as separate ducal houses that split from the main British royal family although they will remain Princes du Sang in the French sense. My point was precisely that I don't see the need to create a new ducal house for each cadet branch of the broader "umbrella dynasty" as it branches out. That made sense in medieval France or England, but not today.

 

[Durham]

If the French system had operated here (agnatic desecent from monarchs regardless of their sex) I think we would have two houses containing princes de sang - Cumberland & Albany (although they were submerged of course into German monarchies). And possibly Beaufort despite their initial illegitimacy? And two or four future - Sussex & Wessex/Edinburgh (maybe) & Gloucester & Kent. The sons (& male line grandsons) of the dukes of Gloucester & Kent & Prince Michael would be princes de sang. Before 1917 agnatic gt grandsons were princes but after that generation they were not as far as I know.

These hypothetical princes de sang would have precedence over peers of any degree.

There are various ducal houses in agnatic descent from Charles II like St Albans & Richmond but they're illegitimate of course.

I remember in Antonia Fraser's Louis XIV there are descriptions of the Prince de Conde who I understand was the senior Prince de Sang. There's also a rather funny vignette of the Duc de Vendome & his nose horribly eaten away by syphalis but since he was of illegitimate descendant he was not strictly speaking a prince de sang.

Interestingly British dukes are correctly, but rarely, styled as princes, just not royal ones.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

If the French system had operated here (agnatic desecent from monarchs regardless of their sex) I think we would have two houses containing princes de sang - Cumberland & Albany (although they were submerged of course into German monarchies). And possibly Beaufort despite their initial illegitimacy? And two or four future - Sussex & Wessex/Edinburgh (maybe) & Gloucester & Kent. The sons (& male line grandsons) of the dukes of Gloucester & Kent & Prince Michael would be princes de sang.

Interestingly, the Albany descendants may be illegitimate under British law. A discussion of this can be found here: Line of Succession to the British Throne

Before 1917 agnatic gt grandsons were princes but after that generation they were not as far as I know.

Excluding the branches submerged into the German monarchies, only one agnatic great-grandson was born before 1917 (Alastair, the son of Prince Arthur of Connaught). He was only a child when the 1917 letters patent were signed, and I suppose we'll never be certain what would have become of his childen.

[...]

In the UK, since there is cognatic succession, the descendants of Queen Elizabeth II (let's call them Mountbatten-Windsor just for the sake of argument) are already a separate family from the Gloucesters and the Kents (Windsor), but, in any case, considering both the paternal lines and the specific maternal lines who came in possession of the Crown (descendants of Queen Victoria and now descendants of Queen Elizabeth II), should we see them as one big royal Hanoverian dynasty descended from George I ? Or should we go further back to James I ? Or Henry VII ? Or William the Conqueror ?



Needless to say, I don't find that reasonable. In the long run, even disregarding the paternal/maternal line distinction, I think that it is more reasonable to see the (Windsor-) Kent or the (Windsor-)Gloucester as separate ducal houses that split from the main British royal family although they will remain Princes du Sang in the French sense. My point was precisely that I don't see the need to create a new ducal house for each cadet branch of the broader "umbrella dynasty" as it branches out. That made sense in medieval France or England, but not today.

I am in agreement with your description of the public's understanding of the cadet branches (but not the separation of maternal lines; I don't think many Britons see Charles as being more a member of his paternal than his maternal family): It will be in the long run, after the current dukes have passed away, that the Windsors of Kent, Gloucester, etc. will be seen by the public as being separate from the royal family. And if I understand correctly, your point is that there is no necessity for these (eventually) separate houses to be dukes instead of commoners.

But the "separate house" understanding helps the legalistic argument that the royal dukes could rely upon: "Every other duke in Britain is allowed to give his title to his son, why shouldn't we?"

As you pointed out here,

I guess that one could argue that the main line of the Royal Family ( determined in Spain and in the UK until recently by male preference primogeniture) already has the privilege of inheriting the title of King and the princely titles for the King’s immediate family like his children ( which are the highest honors in the realm). Giving the cadet/collateral lines of that same family additional ducal titles in perpetuity is an added bonus that is not justified. So I don’t think the family is being unfairly treated if it loses hereditary peerages, as long as it keeps the Crown in its senior line.

it is an effective response to point out that the family as a whole is not being treated differently even if the individual dukes are, but that relies on the understanding that the royal dukes are members of a larger royal dynasty (as in your example of the perception of a wider "Capetian dynasty" in France) and not only the heads of separate houses.

Yes like much else the English monarchy mirrored French custom. To all intents & purposes English medieval monarchy was French. Unsurprising given The Conquest & geography.

I wonder why the British, after extending royal status to male-line grandsons, reserved the giving of dukedoms to sons only (unlike the French)?

 

[Mbruno]

@ Tatiana Maria

Very succinctly , the point I was trying to make is that , in the RF, the main line inherits the title of King while the collateral lines get a bonus title of Duke.

Applying the same logic to an ordinary ducal family, the main line should keep the title of Duke while the collateral lines should be given a bonus hereditary title for example of Earl. That does not happen though, at least not in the UK.

Not giving a hereditary peerage to younger sons of the King would be equivalent simply to treating them as younger sons of a normal Duke are treated, I.e. no bonus title for the collateral line. And giving them a life peerage only, albeit somewhat different, in essence would be equivalent to the prefix Lord for younger sons of a Duke or Marquess,I.e, an honorific distinction that they and their wives could use, but which would not be passed on to their sons.

Edit: Keep in mind also that, regardless of any peerages, younger sons of Kings are already rewarded with the life title of Prince, which means that, by gerting a peerage, they are being doubly rewarded. ! I think there is s point to do it, with life peerages for example, to reinforce the connection of the RF to particular regions of the country, as they do in Swedish Royal House, but, beyond that, I don’t see the point.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Well said, and I fully understand your point; it is the counterargument I described here: Questions about British Styles and Titles

The further point I am now making is that if we wish for our logic to apply, one needs to believe that a royal prince who is given a dukedom remains a member of his royal house of origin, instead of separating from it and founding a new ducal house. Otherwise, he is no longer a "younger son" (of the royal house), he is the "oldest/only son" (of the new ducal house).


VictoriaB's post points out another counterargument that could be used regarding the dukedom of Sussex and future royal dukedoms: If they were converted into life peerages, it would be treating them equivalently to other peerages created since the 1980s.

 

[poppy7]

I do not think it is for BP or CH to try and suggest what H&M do or do not speak about. They are now free agents, and can do as they please, IMO.

I do think Meghan should not be able to use her title and Harry just be able to use Prince Harry. That way they can day what they want.

 

[Curryong]

Meghan is married to Harry the Duke of Sussex, she is the Duchess of Sussex and she is more than entitled to use the styling.

I enjoyed Meghan's speech. She always delivers these in a professional manner, and IMO what she spoke about and how she expressed herself fitted well into the boundaries and aims of GirlsUp. She did well.

 

[poppy7]

Meghan is married to Harry the Duke of Sussex, she is the Duchess of Sussex and she is more than entitled to use the styling.

I enjoyed Meghan's speech. She always delivers these in a professional manner, and IMO what she spoke about and how she expressed herself fitted well into the boundaries and aims of GirlsUp. She did well.

Why? Because she married him? I don't think he should be allowed to use Sussex anymore in public either. Just Prince Harry his birth titl4. She could be Mrs Mont batten Windsor if she 2ants to use her married name.more just her one name. She used it anyway. Although if she just Meghan Markle, Duchess of Sussex. It's just a tagged on married name anyway.

 

[HereditaryPrincess]

Why? Because she married him? I don't think he should be allowed to use Sussex anymore in public either. Just Prince Harry his birth titl4. She could be Mrs Mont batten Windsor if she 2ants to use her married name.more just her one name. She used it anyway. Although if she just Meghan Markle, Duchess of Sussex. It's just a tagged on married name anyway.

Meghan and Harry both agreed not to use their HRHs or prince/princess titles when they stepped back from royal duties, but they still use the Duchy of Sussex.

 

[poppy7]

Meghan and Harry both agreed not to use their HRHs or prince/princess titles when they stepped back from royal duties, but they still use the Duchy of Sussex.

So he is Harry, Duke of Sussex? I don't think he is.

 

[HereditaryPrincess]

So he is Harry, Duke of Sussex? I don't think he is.

Sorry, correction - as he is a prince by birth Harry can retain his princely title; he's just not allowed to use the HRH. The "rule" for the use of prince/princess only applies to Meghan as she is a princess by marriage.

 

[poppy7]

Sorry, correction - as he is a prince by birth Harry can retain his princely title; he's just not allowed to use the HRH. The "rule" for the use of prince/princess only applies to Meghan as she is a princess by marriage.

Well technically she Princess Henry. Why not the Meghan Markle, Princess Henry

 

[HereditaryPrincess]

Well technically she Princess Henry. Why not the Meghan Markle, Princess Henry

I’m just stating what the records say. You’ll have to argue with Meghan herself on that one.

 

[ACO]

They agreed to not use HRH but they are still The Duke and Duchess of Sussex. That was what they all agree with. Take it up with HMQ and Charles.

 

[Osipi]

Why? Because she married him? I don't think he should be allowed to use Sussex anymore in public either. Just Prince Harry his birth titl4. She could be Mrs Mont batten Windsor if she 2ants to use her married name.more just her one name. She used it anyway. Although if she just Meghan Markle, Duchess of Sussex. It's just a tagged on married name anyway.

For me, the logical reason that come to mind are that:

A) Their HRH and Prince/Princess are very much connected to the "Firm" and the monarchy and the British Royal Family.

B) The peerage of the UK and the "Firm" are two different entities unto themselves.

The restriction from using their HRH or even their "royal" prince or princess for personal business ventures on a commercial scale divorces Harry and Meghan from promotion that what they do is in any way connected to the "Firm" and the monarchy and the British Royal Family and what they represent.

Peers of the UK can be involved in all sorts of commercial venture as much as they want to. Even *POLITICS!!*

 

[Mbruno]

For me, the logical reason that come to mind are that:

A) Their HRH and Prince/Princess are very much connected to the "Firm" and the monarchy and the British Royal Family.

B) The peerage of the UK and the "Firm" are two different entities unto themselves.

The restriction from using their HRH or even their "royal" prince or princess for personal business ventures on a commercial scale divorces Harry and Meghan from promotion that what they do is in any way connected to the "Firm" and the monarchy and the British Royal Family and what they represent.

Peers of the UK can be involved in all sorts of commercial venture as much as they want to. Even *POLITICS!!*

Hereditary peers have always been involved in politics as , until 1999, they were automatically members of the British Parliament ( via the House of Lords). Harry is not an ordinary peer though; he is a royal Duke. His title in the peerage cannot be separated from his dignity of Prince and princes are not supposed to be political.

I am not sure, but did the Duke of Kent or the Duke of Gloucester or the Duke of York ( the present holders of the title , I mean) ever vote in the House of Lords when they were members ? Again, since 1999, they are no longer members of the House.

 

[Osipi]

Thanks for the distinction between a peer and a royal peer and I stand corrected. Actually, my feeble brain was thinking of Baroness Thatcher but then again, she was given a life peerage *after* she retired from politics.

 

[Curryong]

Harry is the Duke of Sussex and has been since his wedding day, just as he has been a Prince since his birth. The Queen has not removed the Dukedom of Sussex from Harry, and therefore Meghan is the Duchess of Sussex.

Like every other woman in England she takes her status from her husband, ie Mrs John Smith for example for the untitled, Lady So and So for wives of knights, viscountess, Marchioness, Duchess, etc for higher ranks of the peerage. Meghan is fully entitled to use the styling of Duchess.

 

[QueenMathilde]

I'd be interested in hearing how the people of Sussex feel about Meghan and Harry representing them. I don't think they should use their titles at all if they want to say whatever they want.

 

[Curryong]

Perhaps we should then canvass the people of Cambridge, Kent and Gloucester to see what they think of their royal title holders? Not to mention the people of York! Ducal title holders do not 'represent the people' of their particular geographical designations at all, they are merely historical Dukedoms, in some cases many centuries old. And Harry and Meghan have never stated that they 'want to say whatever they want'.

 

[QueenMathilde]

Perhaps we should then canvass the people of Cambridge, Kent and Gloucester to see what they think of their royal title holders? Not to mention the people of York! Ducal title holders do not 'represent the people' of their particular geographical designations at all, they are merely historical Dukedoms, in some cases many centuries old. And Harry and Meghan have never stated that they 'want to say whatever they want'.

They're still working members of the royal family. Harry and Meghan aren't.

 

[Curryong]

Andrew is a working member of the BRF?! And traditionally Dukedoms were given to younger sons of the King and POW, whether they were 'working members' or not.

 

[QueenMathilde]

Andrew is a working member of the BRF?! And traditionally Dukedoms were given to younger sons of the King and POW, whether they were 'working members' or not.

Andrew should lose his title too. As long as they have their titles and the HRH people who don't know that much about the situation are going to assume they are speaking for the queen.

 

[Curryong]

The Queen obviously doesn't share your opinion about the Dukedoms of her son and grandson. Perhaps you should take it up with her.

Btw Edward VIII was given a Royal Dukedom by his brother King George VI as one of the first acts of his reign, and the ex King kept his HRH. He wasn't a working member of the Royal Family after December 1936.

 

[Leopoldine]

Perhaps the question is whether the US recognizes their titles. If the Sussexes plan to stay here, this would be the big question.

 

[Curryong]

This question has been discussed and thrashed out before in several other threads on the Forum.

However, Princess Madeleine of Sweden lives in Florida and has not been forced to drop her title because of her residence there. Several other members of royal houses have lived in the US and retained their titles. There's been no evidence that Harry wishes to acquire American citizenship.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/swedens-princess-madeleine-moving-florida-1132834

 

[poppy7]

Harry is the Duke of Sussex and has been since his wedding day, just as he has been a Prince since his birth. The Queen has not removed the Dukedom of Sussex from Harry, and therefore Meghan is the Duchess of Sussex.

Like every other woman in England she takes her status from her husband, ie Mrs John Smith for example for the untitled, Lady So and So for wives of knights, viscountess, Marchioness, Duchess, etc for higher ranks of the peerage. Meghan is fully entitled to use the styling of Duchess.

I do take umbrage with that. Women do not always take their husbands name. And it is by no means automatic you have to apply to the records to do it. I dislike the practice myself and hope it will become mess common.