Titles Of Nobility And Aristocracy

[AnnEliza]

Concerning the children of HRH the Earl of Wessex, I thought that as children of a son of the monarch they have the right to HRH Prince/ss, but that at their parents' request they are not using those titles, similar to Camilla being known as Duchess of Cornwall instead of Princess of Wales. But in the case of Prince Edward's children, were they actually stripped of their HRH and their titles of Prince/Princess, or are they just not using them?

[Iluvbertie]

There is some debate on this.


1. That without the issuing of new LPs limiting the HRHs further they are HRHs but not using them.




2. The fact that The Queen's will has been made known is enough to stop them ever having those titles.

[Von Schlesian]

Originally Posted by Ish

I believe - although I could be wrong - that the only hereditary peers who now sit in the House of Lords are people who were created hereditary peers themselves (they didn't inherit it), and then had a life peerage bestowed upon them when the House was reformed.

Or is that completely wrong?

I can't seem to find a reply to this, so I shall take the liberty.

The House of Lords Act, that came into effect in 1999, removed the right of all but 92 hereditary peers to sit in the House of Lords (based purely on their hereditary peerage). Two of that number were ex-officio (The Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain). That leaves ninety, who were elected from among the remaining hereditary peers, with proportional allocation between the political parties and cross-benchers. The term 'elected hereditary', is now in common use to refer to this group.
Along with those, there were those hereditary peers of first creation who were automatically offered life peerages and thereby remain in the House. So the grand total can be calculated by adding the 92 remaining hereditary peers and the hereditary peers of first creation (there were four, with only one still living) in addition, all former leaders of the House of Lords were offered hereditary peerages (there were six, with two still living).
So that is at present, the maximum number of hereditary peers who may sit in the House of Lords (not exactly an insignificant number).

On a related point, Her Majesty is perfectly free to create any type of peerage, at any time, without interference from the government. If she so wishes, she may create a Dukedom and seventy hereditary Baronies tomorrow. Of course, that won't happen, but it doesn't for a moment mean that it can't.

[Queen Shirley]

I’m under the understanding that Queen Elizabeth’s mother, Queen consort Elizabeth, was called Her Majesty after the death of the King and after Queen Elizebeth II ‘s coronation. If this is correct usage of the title then why is Prince Phillip not referred to as His Majesty?

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Queen Shirley

I’m under the understanding that Queen Elizabeth’s mother, Queen consort Elizabeth, was called Her Majesty after the death of the King and after Queen Elizebeth II ‘s coronation. If this is correct usage of the title then why is Prince Phillip not referred to as His Majesty?

"Majesty" is just used in reference to kings and queens. Philip has never been a king but is titled as a prince of the UK. Princes and princesses are known as "royal highnesses" in the UK

[Queen Shirley]

So a Queen consort and a Ruling Queen are more or less equal and both can be called Her Majesty?

[Leopoldine]

Originally Posted by Queen Shirley

So a Queen consort and a Ruling Queen are more or less equal and both can be called Her Majesty?

They are both addressed as Your Majesty, but a Queen Regnant will always be above a Queen Consort this ----- much. :)

Male consorts of regnant queens are sensitive chicken-legged men with pursed lips who are always mad and ..... kidding. It takes a fine and confident man to marry a regnant queen. And, if the UK is any example, it guarantees a long and happy life.

Here's to you, Duke Of E.!

[CyrilVladisla]

In Hungary John Hunyadi was the first to receive a hereditary title. King Ladislaus (Laszlo) V the Posthumous rewarded Hunyadi with the Saxon district of Beszterce and the title of perpetual count in 1453.

Do viscounts' sons use secondary titles as courtesy titles if their fathers have such titles available?

[Countessmeout]

Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla

Do viscounts' sons use secondary titles as courtesy titles if their fathers have such titles available?

No. According to debrett's, only the children of a Duke, Marquis and earl are entitled to use the lesser title of their father. While there are viscounts with a lesser title (baron is the only lesser hereditary peer) the eldest son is simply refered to as The honorable x. The few viscounts who also have a barony, most started as barons and were elevated. So as we see something like Duke X, Earl X because the earl was elevated to duke and maintained both titles, we see Viscount X, Baron X.

https://www.debretts.com/expertise/e...urtesy-titles/

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Warren

Very thorough and enjoyable reading Ish.

A present-day example of ennoblement (or raise in status) due to marital proximity is the family of the current Queen of the Belgians.
Mathilde d'Udekem d'Acoz was born into an untitled noble family of baronial descent. Her father bore the honorific of Jonkheer, which in English translates to somewhere between "The Honourable" and "Lord". Mathilde bore the honorific of Jonkvrouw.

When she married the Duke of Brabant (ie Crown Prince) in 1999, King Albert elevated the family of d'Udekem d'Acoz from the baronial to the comital rank, hereditary in the male line. Her father and brother thus gained a title, that of count, and her surviving sisters that of countess (her mother was uneffected, already being a countess in her own right).

Thus the daughter's marriage into the upper level of the Belgian Royal House directly led to her own family's rise in title, rank and status.

Mathilde herself also became a countess in her own right. Her full name and style following her husband's accession to the throne is:

Sa Majesté la Reine Mathilde Marie Christine Ghislaine comtesse d'Udekem d'Acoz, Princesse de Belgique

"Comtesse" and "Princesse de Belgique" are the only titles that she holds in her own right as "Reine" (i.e. Queen) is actually a courtesy title only. Note also that she is not "Reine des Belges" (Queen of the Belgians ) as that title, following the introduction of equal primogeniture, is now reserved for reigning queens only, Neverthless, she is often wrongly called Queen of the Belgians, even by the Belgian press, but not in official documents.

Philippe , her husband, is officially

Sa Majesté le Roi Philippe Léopold Louis Marie, Roi des Belges, Prince de Belgique

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Countessmeout

No. According to debrett's, only the children of a Duke, Marquis and earl are entitled to use the lesser title of their father. While there are viscounts with a lesser title (baron is the only lesser hereditary peer) the eldest son is simply refered to as The honorable x. The few viscounts who also have a baronetcy, most started as barons and were elevated. So as we see something like Duke X, Earl X because the earl was elevated to duke and maintained both titles, we see Viscount X, Baron X.

https://www.debretts.com/expertise/e...urtesy-titles/

A baronetcy isn't the same as a barony.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Countessmeout

No. According to debrett's, only the children of a Duke, Marquis and earl are entitled to use the lesser title of their father. While there are viscounts with a lesser title (baron is the only lesser hereditary peer) the eldest son is simply refered to as The honorable x. The few viscounts who also have a barony, most started as barons and were elevated. So as we see something like Duke X, Earl X because the earl was elevated to duke and maintained both titles, we see Viscount X, Baron X.

https://www.debretts.com/expertise/e...urtesy-titles/

If somone has a barony and also a viscountcy, I would have said that the eldest son could use the barony by courtesy .. No?

[kbk]

Originally Posted by Denville

If somone has a barony and also a viscountcy, I would have said that the eldest son could use the barony by courtesy .. No?

No, British viscounts' heirs do not use courtesy titles. All of the Earls, Marquesses and Dukes, though, have subsidiary titles used by their direct heirs. Some dukes even have their great-grandsons (3rds in line) using those, but currently there are none.

Lord Cavendish, who is the Duke of Devonshire's only son and heir's only son and heir, is using the title reserved for the great-grandson because his father, Earl of Burlington, did not assume the title Marquess of Hartington after his father became duke. Usually, he would be Burlington.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

Mathilde herself also became a countess in her own right. Her full name and style following her husband's accession to the throne is:

Sa Majesté la Reine Mathilde Marie Christine Ghislaine comtesse d'Udekem d'Acoz, Princesse de Belgique

"Comtesse" and "Princesse de Belgique" are the only titles that she holds in her own right as "Reine" (i.e. Queen) is actually a courtesy title only. Note also that she is not "Reine des Belges" (Queen of the Belgians ) as that title, following the introduction of equal primogeniture, is now reserved for reigning queens only, Neverthless, she is often wrongly called Queen of the Belgians, even by the Belgian press, but not in official documents.

Philippe , her husband, is officially

Sa Majesté le Roi Philippe Léopold Louis Marie, Roi des Belges, Prince de Belgique

That's right! Just two comments:

1. My understanding is that "Queen" is a rank or style that Mathilde legally holds, given that it is used in official documents, and that "Queen of the Belgians" is her proper courtesy title, as that is how the court called her in Le Carnet Mondain.

2. The 2015 decree retroactively restored ancestral "other titles" to princes and princesses who had none, out of necessity under Philippe's new rules regarding surnames. Therefore Philippe's long title is

Sa Majesté le Roi Philippe Léopold Louis Marie, Roi des Belges, Prince de Belgique, Duc de Saxe, Prince de Saxe-Cobourg-Gotha

[osterleyp]

Are there any peerage holder that use combined titles that are ranked differently? There's a precedence when the titles are united but both of these titles are similarly ranked. For example: William Alexander Sidney Herbert, 18th Earl of Pembroke, 15th Earl of Montgomery.

What about Marquess and Earl?

Let's take Lord Mountbatten's title "Earl Mountbatten of Burma" as an example. Lord Mountbatten's elder daughter, Patricia inherited his title. This is very rare hence why I'm interested. The late Patricia Mountbatten, 2nd Countess Mountbatten married Baron Brabourne. As a consequence, the peerage title "Baron Brabourne" became subsidiary to that of the Earldom. But what if Patricia married someone with a higher ranked title? What if she married a marquess? What if Patricia the 8th Marquess Townshend. What would happen to the earldom when it was passed to Patricia's heir? Would it be "absorbed" and become one of the subsidiary titles of the Marquess Townshend? Or would it be united like the Earl of Pembroke and Earl of Montgomery?

Earldom as subsidiary title: Nicholas Louis Philip Townshend, 10th Marquess Townshend and his eldest son/heir apparent, Edward Louis Alexander Townshend, Earl Mountbatten

Earldom became united with Marquessate: Nicholas Louis Philip Townshend, 10th Marquess Townshend, 3rd Earl Mountbatten of Burma"

Is there precendence for this?

Thank you in advance.

[Somebody]

First, it differs per country. The British and Spanish system, although they have similarities (a peerage system in which there is only one title holder), work differently - and the differences with the continental systems in which all (male-line) descendants carry the same title is even larger.

In het peerage system, in most cases it seems that people use their highest title; and many times only one even if their various titles are of the same rank. If the other titles aren't used by the titleholder they can be used by their heir (and heir's heir).

An example of someone with two 'similarly ranked' titles is Edward. Nobody calls him 'The Earl of Wessex and Forfar', while he is both. James continues to use 'Viscount Severn' - I cannot think of a case in which a 'same level' title is used for the heir but it would be interesting to see if someone can think of one. In William's case, we'll have to see whether they will use 'The Duke and Duchess of Cornwall and Cambridge' once Charles is king or that they will normally stick to 'Cornwall'.

[Durham]

Originally Posted by Somebody

First, it differs per country. The British and Spanish system, although they have similarities (a peerage system in which there is only one title holder), work differently - and the differences with the continental systems in which all (male-line) descendants carry the same title is even larger.

In het peerage system, in most cases it seems that people use their highest title; and many times only one even if their various titles are of the same rank. If the other titles aren't used by the titleholder they can be used by their heir (and heir's heir).

An example of someone with two 'similarly ranked' titles is Edward. Nobody calls him 'The Earl of Wessex and Forfar', while he is both. James continues to use 'Viscount Severn' - I cannot think of a case in which a 'same level' title is used for the heir but it would be interesting to see if someone can think of one. In William's case, we'll have to see whether they will use 'The Duke and Duchess of Cornwall and Cambridge' once Charles is king or that they will normally stick to 'Cornwall'.

George V was known as The Duke of Cornwall & York after his father's succession & before he was made Prince of Wales

Regarding post 55 there was the Countess-Duchess of Sutherland. The earldom was hers but the dukedom was created for her husband. So not quite an answer to the question.

[Gawin]

In terms of the UK, I can't think of any peers who were known by combined titles that were ranked differently. I believe the highest ranking title was preferred and only equally-ranked titles were combined.

This is somewhat peripheral to your question, but sometimes Scottish and Irish peers used a lower-ranking title while sitting in the House of Lords because their Scottish/Irish titles did not automatically entitle them to a seat.

For example, the Queen's maternal grandfather the 14th Earl of Strathmore & Kinghorne (a Scottish title) sat in the House as Baron Bowes of Streatlam (a lower-ranking title created in the peerage of the UK). Or at least he did until 1937 when his son-in-law George VI made him Earl of Strathmore & Kinghorne in the peerage of the UK, which allowed him to sit as an earl.

[Durham]

Similarly peripheral to the question in post 55 would be the curious case of the Jacobite peers. Known by one title in the kingdoms of GB or Ireland & another (often higher) at the exiled court of James II.

[An Ard Ri]

The Duke of Leinster is the premier title in the peerage of Ireland and the subsidiary titles are Marquess of Kildare and Earl of Offaly.

The current 9th Duke ,Lord Maurice FitzGerald (b1948) succeeded his father in 2004.Sadly his only son Thomas FitzGerald, Earl of Offaly was killed in a car accident in 1997 and was unmarried. The Duke also has 2 daughters and 3 sisters but none of them can succeed him. The heir to the dukedom is his nephew Edward FitzGerald.