Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Osipi]

I believe that in the scenario that you've presented, with the death of the Duke of Edinburgh, the title would revert to the Crown as the heir to the title became King and *all* his titles would revert to the Crown at that time. It would then be at Charles' discretion to create a new Duke of Edinburgh or not.

As dukedoms are a peerage of the UK and subject to approval by Parliament, I seriously doubt that it would be approved that a son from a second marriage outside of the UK itself would past muster.

So, most likely in this scenario, the Duke of Edinburgh title would lie dormant until a future monarch with parliaments assent deemed a new creation of that title.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Osipi is correct, as Charles became King before his father died his fathers titles assuming the remainders were the same as they are now, would have merged with the crown and remained there for re-issue.

 

[Queen Claude]

I agree with the above but if Charles pre-deceased Philip then the title would go to his second son from his second marriage, right?

 

[Osipi]

The scenario presented had the Duke of Edinburgh pass on before Charles dies.

I'm not overly sure about if the second son could inherit the title if, according to the scenario, Philip remarried someone outside of the UK and Charles predeceased him. Its an interesting point there. If the second son was foreign and not a UK citizen, would he be eligible to be a peer of the UK?

Iluvbertie would be one that would know more than I about this. I'm going to guess that the second son, Andrew, even though he may not be a UK citizen or reside in the UK, could still inherit his father's title as he is a heirs male of the title holder's body lawfully begotten. It used to be that hereditary peers could sit and vote in the House of Lords but with the the House of Lords Act 1999, it removed the entitlement of most of the hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords.

ETA: OK. Its wikipedia but this is what is listed.

"Nothing prevents a British peerage from being held by a foreign citizen (although such peers cannot sit in the House of Lords, while the term foreign does not include Irish or Commonwealth citizens). Several descendants of George III were British peers and German subjects; the Lords Fairfax of Cameron were American citizens for several generations."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hereditary_peer

 

[Queen Claude]

In the scenario presented Philip's second wife is not British but did not specify that Philip relocated. Furthermore, royals marry foreigners all the time, marrying their own countrypeople is a fairly recent phenomenon. Philip marrying a foreigner will not jeopardize his title, I doubt if he relocated if that would jeopardize his title unless it is due to requirements tied to him (or his heir) being a Counsellor of State.

In my comment I noted that I agreed with the two previous responses, and then put forth a twist on the original scenario and then said that in the revised scenario the second son will inherit the title and asked for confirmation.

 

[Osipi]

According to what I found, there is nothing to bar a second son (no matter where he was born or lives) from inheriting the Duke of Edinburgh title if he was the eldest living son at the time Philip passed away. He just wouldn't be eligible to be elected to a seat in the House of Lords if, indeed, he was foreign or not a UK citizen. ?

Andrew though would never be close to being a Councilor of State. Those positions are held by the most senior members of the British Royal Family. Andrew, as a child of a second marriage of the Duke of Edinburgh would not be royal or in the line of succession at all. The dukedom of Edinburgh would cease to be a royal dukedom upon Philip's death even though his son, Andrew, inherits the title.

 

[Somebody]

In the end it's really simple. Once it merged with the crown it is 'gone' and needs to be recreated for anyone else to hold that title (as a new creation).

 

[mathmannix]

Right, I never intended it to be a controversy in the question that Andrew was a foreigner. (It never occurred to me that a foreigner couldn't inherit a peerage, although in retrospect it is obvious that the UK wouldn't want foreigners in its House of Lords!) I just wondered if the title "Duke of Edinburgh" was treated as dormant while ostensibly being held by the King, subject to later separation as in my example, or if it really became extinct upon merging with the Crown.

It also would be interesting if Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, had had a daughter first and then a son. The daughter would be in line to succeed as Queen (under the new succession laws) but the son would be in line to succeed as Duke, but only if William died before becoming King and merging the Duchy into the Crown.

 

[Osipi]

Another interesting tidbit is that in the Andrew scenario where Charles dies before Philip and Andrew inherits the Duke of Edinburgh title from his father. Andrew would be Andrew Mountbatten, 2nd Duke of Edinburgh (similar to Charles Spencer, 9th Earl Spencer. Charles is the 9th male to inherit the title from his father).

In the scenario where Philip dies and Charles becomes King and the Duke of Edinburgh title merges with the Crown, when a new Duke of Edinburgh is created, that person will be the Duke of Edinburgh and the count starts all over again as it is passed down the line.

 

[Kataryn]

Andrew, as a child of a second marriage of the Duke of Edinburgh would not be royal or in the line of succession at all. The dukedom of Edinburgh would cease to be a royal dukedom upon Philip's death even though his son, Andrew, inherits the title.

He would be Royal and he would be in the line of succession because AFAIK you need the consent of the Danish monarch to rid yourself of Danish titles which Philip never got, so any child from a second marrige would be a Prince/ss of Greece and Denmark and a descendent of the electress Sophie, thus in line for the British throne, even if just further down the line.

 

[Osipi]

What my point was that he would not be a *British* royal and even though a descendant of the Electress Sophia, quite removed from being anywhere near a royal position in the UK of being a Councilor of State. If and when he inherited the Duke of Edinburgh title from his father, it would cease to be a royal dukedom.

Very similar to the situation now with the Duke of Kent title. Right now it is held by Prince Edward, Duke of Kent but when he passes on, it will cease to be a royal dukedom because none of his sons are HRH or Prince of the UK. His heir apparent right now is George Windsor, Earl of St. Andrews (one of his father's subsidiary titles).

 

[Queen Claude]

He would be Royal and he would be in the line of succession because AFAIK you need the consent of the Danish monarch to rid yourself of Danish titles which Philip never got, so any child from a second marrige would be a Prince/ss of Greece and Denmark and a descendent of the electress Sophie, thus in line for the British throne, even if just further down the line.

Andrew in the scenario given would have royal blood but he would not be a royal duke of the UK.

That's interesting if Philip is still a Prince of Denmark. Did he have to get consent from the Danish monarch when he married Princess Elizabeth? What about when he was made a Prince of the UK?

 

[Osipi]

As far as I know, Philip renounced his title of Prince of Greece and Denmark before his marriage. There was a big discussion about this but I'll be darned if I can remember exactly where it was. Probably in the Questions about British Titles and Styles thread.

 

[Iluvbertie]

In the scenarios presented above:

1. Charles would inherit his father's titles on his father's death (as he will now). When he becomes King - either before or after his father's death - the titles merge with the Crown and no one else can inherit them from Philip.

2. If Charles were to predecease his father - whether as King or not - the title could then pass to the second son regardless of who the mother was - so long as the marriage was a legal marriage as the LPs creating the Edinburgh title are the standard remainders 'heirs male of the body lawfully begotten'. There is nothing that says that those heirs have to be the children of Elizabeth.

3. There are a number of British peers who are 'foreigners' and live outside the UK. Some use their titles and others don't.

 

[Somebody]

In the scenarios presented above:

1. Charles would inherit his father's titles on his father's death (as he will now). When he becomes King - either before or after his father's death - the titles merge with the Crown and no one else can inherit them from Philip.

2. If Charles were to predecease his father - whether as King or not - the title could then pass to the second son regardless of who the mother was - so long as the marriage was a legal marriage as the LPs creating the Edinburgh title are the standard remainders 'heirs male of the body lawfully begotten'. There is nothing that says that those heirs have to be the children of Elizabeth.

3. There are a number of British peers who are 'foreigners' and live outside the UK. Some use their titles and others don't.

Number 2 of course only if Charles didn't have any sons (as in the scenario - in real life it would pass on to Philip's grandson and greatgrandsons by his eldest sons before being passed on to his second son).

Currently, the only way for Philip's titles not to merge with the crown require the extremely unlikely and unfortunate event of Charles, William and George passing away before both Philip and Elizabeth pass away. In that case prince Louis of Cambridge would be the new Duke of Edinburgh (and his sister the new queen).

 

[wbenson]

Once a peerage merges in the crown, it's permanent, as if the peerage went extinct:

"The sovereign cannot hold a peerage: accordingly, where a member of the Royal Family, who was a Peer of Ireland, succeeded to the Crown, the Peerage became extinct."

 

[Denville]

As far as I know, Philip renounced his title of Prince of Greece and Denmark before his marriage. There was a big discussion about this but I'll be darned if I can remember exactly where it was. Probably in the Questions about British Titles and Styles thread.

yes he resigned his titles and was plain Lieut Philip Mountbatten

 

[CyrilVladisla]

What if the title had been The Duke of Edinburgh and Kent? Could just the first part The Duke of Edinburgh be inherited by his son? Could the second part of the title, The Duke of Kent, revert to the Crown?

 

[Somebody]

What if the title had been The Duke of Edinburgh and Kent? Could just the first part The Duke of Edinburgh be inherited by his son? Could the second part of the title, The Duke of Kent, revert to the Crown?

No, either all titles a person holds meege with the crown (if that person is/becomes the sovereign) or no titles because that person does not ascend the throne.

Of course after merger with the crown both Kent and Edinburgh could be assigned separately in a new creation.

 

[Iluvbertie]

What if the title had been The Duke of Edinburgh and Kent? Could just the first part The Duke of Edinburgh be inherited by his son? Could the second part of the title, The Duke of Kent, revert to the Crown?

No. The title would be created under the one Letters Patent and unless there was a special remainder to allow the splitting of the title then the title has to follow the remainder of the initial creation.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Andrew in the scenario given would have royal blood but he would not be a royal duke of the UK.

That's interesting if Philip is still a Prince of Denmark. Did he have to get consent from the Danish monarch when he married Princess Elizabeth? What about when he was made a Prince of the UK?

Philip was a Prince of Greece and Denmark, a sideline of the Danish royal family. He needed permission from the King of the Hellenes, the head of his House.

Had Philip kept his titles, it would probably have gone the way à la the prince-consorts Albert von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha, Heinrich von Mecklenburg-Schwerin, Félix de Bourbon de Parme, Bernhard zur Lippe- Biesterfelfd, Henri de Laborde de Monpezat and Claus von Amsberg: all their male-line descendants received their title or predicate and surname as part of the title:

HRH The Prince Edward of the United Kingdom of GB&I, Prince of Saxen-Coburg and Gotha
HKH prinses Juliana der Nederlanden, prinses van Oranje-Nassau, hertogin van Mecklenburg
SAR le prince Jean de Luxembourg, prince de Nassau, prince de Bourbon de Parme
HKH prinses Beatrix der Nederlanden, prinses van Oranje-Nassau, prinses van Lippe-Biesterfeld
ZKH prins Willem-Alexander der Nederlanden, prins van Orange-Nassau, jonkheer van Amsberg
HKH Kronprins Frederik, prins til Denmark, greve af Monpezat

 

[Iluvbertie]

Andrew in the scenario given would have royal blood but he would not be a royal duke of the UK.

That's interesting if Philip is still a Prince of Denmark. Did he have to get consent from the Danish monarch when he married Princess Elizabeth? What about when he was made a Prince of the UK?

Philip did not need permission from either the Kings of Greece or Denmark to marry as he had renounced his rights to those thrones before the engagement - so he could marry Elizabeth.

He needed the King of Greece's permission to renounce his succession rights to Greece and the King of Denmark to do so there but having done so he no longer needed their permission to marry as he was no longer a dynast in those families and couldn't pass on succession rights to his children in Greece and/or Denmark.

 

[Mbruno]

Right, I never intended it to be a controversy in the question that Andrew was a foreigner. (It never occurred to me that a foreigner couldn't inherit a peerage, although in retrospect it is obvious that the UK wouldn't want foreigners in its House of Lords!)

I believe a foreigner can be a member of the House of Lords, or the House of Commons for that matter, if he or she is a citizen of the Republic of Ireland or any member state of the Commonwealth. That means citizens of about 53 countries other than the UK would actually qualify.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Philip did not need permission from either the Kings of Greece or Denmark to marry as he had renounced his rights to those thrones before the engagement - so he could marry Elizabeth.

He needed the King of Greece's permission to renounce his succession rights to Greece and the King of Denmark to do so there but having done so he no longer needed their permission to marry as he was no longer a dynast in those families and couldn't pass on succession rights to his children in Greece and/or Denmark.

If a member of the Greek royal family married without obtaining the consent of the Greek monarch, the member did not merely lose their succession rights, but the marriage was invalid and the children were illegitimate. However, since a law passed a few years before apparently stipulated that only descendants who were in the line of succession and Greek citizens, and their spouses, were considered members of the Greek royal family, I suppose Philip did not need to obtain consent after renouncing his succession rights and citizenship.

As far as I know, Philip renounced his title of Prince of Greece and Denmark before his marriage. There was a big discussion about this but I'll be darned if I can remember exactly where it was. Probably in the Questions about British Titles and Styles thread.

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...enship-and-greek-and-danish-titles-28085.html

In conclusion, nobody was able to provide written documentation of a renunciation, but apparently the British royal family confirmed that the titles were renounced. Since the former Greek monarchy and the Danish monarchy left titles and styles to the monarch, instead of regulating them by law, a renunciation in writing may not have been needed.

Philip was a Prince of Greece and Denmark, a sideline of the Danish royal family. He needed permission from the King of the Hellenes, the head of his House.

Had Philip kept his titles, it would probably have gone the way à la the prince-consorts Albert von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha, Heinrich von Mecklenburg-Schwerin, Félix de Bourbon de Parme, Bernhard zur Lippe- Biesterfelfd, Henri de Laborde de Monpezat and Claus von Amsberg: all their male-line descendants received their title or predicate and surname as part of the title:

HRH The Prince Edward of the United Kingdom of GB&I, Prince of Saxen-Coburg and Gotha
HKH prinses Juliana der Nederlanden, prinses van Oranje-Nassau, hertogin van Mecklenburg
SAR le prince Jean de Luxembourg, prince de Nassau, prince de Bourbon de Parme
HKH prinses Beatrix der Nederlanden, prinses van Oranje-Nassau, prinses van Lippe-Biesterfeld
ZKH prins Willem-Alexander der Nederlanden, prins van Orange-Nassau, jonkheer van Amsberg
HKH Kronprins Frederik, prins til Denmark, greve af Monpezat

All except for the children of King Willem-Alexander, who did not receive the Amsberg title.
https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/stb-2002-41.html

 

[Tatiana Maria]

As monarch, Queen Elizabeth II has as a rule addressed titleless married women with their husband's first name as well as last name.

For example, in the update on the bridesmaids and page boys in 2011, all of the titleless mothers were Mrs. (Husband's first name) (Husband's last name).

https://www.royal.uk/update-maid-honour-and-bridesmaids-best-man-and-page-boys

However, in the update on the bridesmaids and page boys today, all of the mothers are Mrs. (Her first name) (Husband's last name).

https://www.royal.uk/bridesmaids-and-page-boys-wedding-prince-harry-and-ms-meghan-markle

I wonder whether the announcement today will be the exception or a lasting change to Elizabeth II's rules regarding married women. Will she allow Princess Eugenie of York to be addressed as Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Brooksbank rather than Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank after the wedding in October?

The announcement of Princess Eugenie's bridal party addresses the titleless mothers in the same way, with their own first names.

Miss Savannah Philips (aged 7 – daughter of Mrs Autumn Phillips and Mr Peter Phillips)

Miss Isla Philips (aged 6 - daughter of Mrs Autumn Phillips and Mr Peter Phillips)

Miss Mia Tindall (aged 4 – daughter of Mrs Zara Tindall and Mr Mike Tindall)

Miss Theodora Williams (aged 6 – daughter of Ms Ayda Field and Mr Robbie Williams)

Mr Louis de Givenchy (aged 6 – son of Mrs Zoe De Givenchy and Mr Olivier De Givenchy)​

However, other announcements issued by the royal household have continued to address married women with their husbands' first names:

https://www.royal.uk/announcement-birth-mr-and-mrs-tindalls-second-baby

Mrs Michael Tindall was safely delivered of a baby girl on 18th June, at Stroud Maternity Unit. Mr Tindall was present at the birth. The weight of the baby was 9lbs 3oz.​

I wonder why there is a difference.

 

[Somebody]

Interestingly the names of the mothers are mentioned first. Maybe they decided on this to make ms Ayda Field stand out less?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Interestingly the names of the mothers are mentioned first. Maybe they decided on this to make ms Ayda Field stand out less?

They were also mentioned first in the announcement of Prince Harry's bridal party:

(Aged 3 – goddaughter of Prince Harry, daughter of Mrs. Alice van Cutsem and Major Nicholas van Cutsem)

(Aged 6 – goddaughter of Ms. Markle, daughter of Mrs. Benita Litt and Mr. Darren Litt)

(Aged 7 – goddaughter of Ms. Markle, daughter of Mrs. Benita Litt and Mr. Darren Litt)

(Aged 4 – daughter of Mrs. Jessica Mulroney and Mr. Benedict Mulroney)

(Aged 2 – goddaughter of Prince Harry, daughter of Mrs. Zoe Warren and Mr. Jake Warren)

(Aged 6 – godson of Prince Harry, son of Mrs. Amanda Dyer and Mr. Mark Dyer M.V.O.)

(Aged 7 – son of Mrs. Jessica Mulroney and Mr. Benedict Mulroney)

(Aged 7 – son of Mrs. Jessica Mulroney and Mr. Benedict Mulroney)
​

In the announcement of Prince William's bridal party, the untitled parents were mentioned as

(Aged 3 daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Hugh van Cutsem)

(Aged 3 daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Harry Lopes)

(Aged 10 son of Mr. and Mrs. Jamie Lowther-Pinkerton)

(Aged 8 son of Mr. and Mrs. Charles Pettifer )​

 

[Lumutqueen]

Interestingly the names of the mothers are mentioned first. Maybe they decided on this to make ms Ayda Field stand out less?

Whilst Ayda hasn't taken her husbands name officially, they are married so I find this a bit odd.

 

[Somebody]

Whilst Ayda hasn't taken her husbands name officially, they are married so I find this a bit odd.

What do you find odd? That the British royal family calls her ms while all others are called mrs? Or that the way it was handled makes sure it doesn't stand out as much. Imo it would stand out if all couples were mentioned as mr and mrs X while one couple was mentioned as mr X and ms Y. Although I am sure they are fine with it as it is a consequence of her decision not to take her husband's name.

Maybe they just followed the way it was announced at Harry and Meghan's wedding which could have been a request by Meghan as it is not the way these things are traditionally done as shown by the way it was announced at William and Catherine's wedding.

 

[Duke of Leaside]

The announcement of Princess Eugenie's bridal party addresses the titleless mothers in the same way, with their own first names.

Miss Savannah Philips (aged 7 – daughter of Mrs Autumn Phillips and Mr Peter Phillips)

Miss Isla Philips (aged 6 - daughter of Mrs Autumn Phillips and Mr Peter Phillips)

...
​

It is unfortunate that they misspelled the surname of both Savannah and Isla Phillips. Perhaps there's only one "l" because the writer of the press release got confused with the spelling of The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.

They did however spell the parents' (Autumn Phillips and Peter Phillips) surnames correctly in the release.

Hopefully they won't have to reprint all the wedding programmes between now and Friday.​