Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[jacqui24]

Yes, at some point in the future Parliament might pass an act allowing female heirs to become Duchess of Cornwall in keeping with new succession rules.

If they are to change this, I would think they don’t have a choice but to change it for all peers to allow daughters to inherit. Then comes the question of sons and then daughters or simply first born?

 

[O-H Anglophile]

If they are to change this, I would think they don’t have a choice but to change it for all peers to allow daughters to inherit. Then comes the question of sons and then daughters or simply first born?

I don't see how this would be the case though. The Queen is the Duke of Lancaster because she is the monarch. The heir apparent, if the eldest child of the monarch, should be Duke of Cornwall whether male or female.

As I see it, the huge difference between the Dukedom of Cornwall and other hereditary peerages is there is a specific person who can hold the title--it cannot pass to a nephew or cousin.

 

[Gawin]

I don't see how this would be the case though. The Queen is the Duke of Lancaster because she is the monarch. The heir apparent, if the eldest child of the monarch, should be Duke of Cornwall whether male or female.

As I see it, the huge difference between the Dukedom of Cornwall and other hereditary peerages is there is a specific person who can hold the title--it cannot pass to a nephew or cousin.

Agreed, the Duchy of Cornwall is a unique situation, just as succession to the crown is. And it's not just the title. A princess who's next in line should also be entitled to the duchy's revenue.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

[...] A princess who's next in line should also be entitled to the duchy's revenue.

That is the current situation. The Princess Elizabeth never was Duke of Cornwall but received the revenues as if she was the Duke indeed. She received it via her father, King George, whom executed the rights in Cornwall during the 'sede vacante' in the Duchy.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

That is the current situation. The Princess Elizabeth never was Duke of Cornwall but received the revenues as if she was the Duke indeed. She received it via her father, King George, whom executed the rights in Cornwall during the 'sede vacante' in the Duchy.

But that is unfair to a woman heir apparent-a brother would automatically get the revenues. A woman heir apparent would need to rely on the graciousness, goodwill and generosity of her father (or mother.)

As far as that being the case with George VI and Elizabeth, times were vastly different 75 years ago. Additionally, Elizabeth was the heir presumptive, not the heir apparent.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

But that is unfair to a woman heir apparent-a brother would automatically get the revenues. A woman heir apparent would need to rely on the graciousness, goodwill and generosity of her father (or mother.)

As far as that being the case with George VI and Elizabeth, times were vastly different 75 years ago. Additionally, Elizabeth was the heir presumptive, not the heir apparent.

I agree. Change it like it was done with the traditional titles Prince of Orange, Prince of Asturias, Duke of Brabant: no longer for the male successor to the throne, but for the successor to the throne. But as Charles, William and George are there, no urge for modernisation, we will probably see it changed when George's firstborn is a daughter.

 

[Mbruno]

If they are to change this, I would think they don’t have a choice but to change it for all peers to allow daughters to inherit. Then comes the question of sons and then daughters or simply first born?

A general rule applying to all peerages is not needed IMHO. It would suffice to change the Duchy's royal charter. I believe a royal charter can be changed without an act of Parliament, by royal prerogative only, but I leave it to the experts to confirm that.

I agree. Change it like it was done with the traditional titles Prince of Orange, Prince of Asturias, Duke of Brabant: no longer for the male successor to the throne, but for the successor to the throne. But as Charles, William and George are there, no urge for modernisation, we will probably see it changed when George's firstborn is a daughter.

The title of Princess of Asturias actually has been historically available to any heir presumptive to the Spanish throne, including female heiresses. For example, two of Queen Isabella I's daughters, namely Isabella, future Queen of Portugal, and Joanna the Mad, were both Princesses of Asturias in their own right, and so was also María de las Mercedes de Borbón y Habsburgo-Lorena, the eldest daughter of King Alfonso XII and sister to King Alfonso XIII.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I agree. Change it like it was done with the traditional titles Prince of Orange, Prince of Asturias, Duke of Brabant: no longer for the male successor to the throne, but for the successor to the throne. But as Charles, William and George are there, no urge for modernisation, we will probably see it changed when George's firstborn is a daughter.

The Brabant title is different - the heir to the Belgian throne automatically becomes Duchess or Duke of Brabant only if they are the eldest child, or the eldest child of the eldest child, of the Sovereign. If Princess Elisabeth of Belgium remains childless, she will need to issue a new Royal Decree to create her brother Duke of Brabant on her accession.

I find the new rules in the Netherlands, Spain, Luxembourg, and Monaco to be more appropriate: The heir automatically receives the title regardless of gender or relation to the monarch. In the event that Prince George of Cambridge never has children of his own, Princess Charlotte will presumably perform the same duties for her brother as Prince Charles performs for his mother, and consequently would in my view deserve to bear the same titles.

Agreed, the Duchy of Cornwall is a unique situation, just as succession to the crown is. And it's not just the title. A princess who's next in line should also be entitled to the duchy's revenue.

The Sovereign Grant Act of 2011 ensured that the heir, regardless of having the status of heir presumptive or heir apparent, automatically receives a grant equal to the duchy revenues.

Sovereign Grant Act 2011

If they are to change this, I would think they don’t have a choice but to change it for all peers to allow daughters to inherit. Then comes the question of sons and then daughters or simply first born?

Eliminating gender discrimination from inheritance laws is a logical move but not a prerequisite to amending the charter of the Duchy of Cornwall. At the present time there are peerages whose letters patent allow for female inheritance (with males taking precedence) in spite of male-only inheritance being the most common rule.

 

[Excalibur]

When the British government introduced equal primogeniture in the succession to the crown, it stated that it did not wish to introduce female succession to the duchy of Cornwall because "a huge amount of consultation would be required". I am not entirely clear about the implications of that statement, but my speculation is that the government's statement may have been implying the current Duke of Cornwall (who is consulted on legislation concerning the duchy) is opposed to it, as there were unconfirmed reports that he was opposed to introducing equal primogeniture in the succession to the crown.

IIRC, Charles' objection to the Succession to the Crown Act was not the legislation itself, but rather the fact that it was being rushed through the several Parliaments, without due consideration of the full impact of the changes, especially as to how it would impact the Duchy of Cornwall. I cannot imagine that he would object to a first-born female monarch, considering that his mother is a shining example of an excellent monarch.

 

[loonytick]

So the duchy wasn’t included in the succession change; what about the title of Prince of Wales? As it stands now, if George were to have a female heir, when he is king would he be able to (without more legal wrangling) make her Princess of Wales?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The title of Princess of Asturias actually has been historically available to any heir presumptive to the Spanish throne, including female heiresses. For example, two of Queen Isabella I's daughters, namely Isabella, future Queen of Portugal, and Joanna the Mad, were both Princesses of Asturias in their own right, and so was also María de las Mercedes de Borbón y Habsburgo-Lorena, the eldest daughter of King Alfonso XII and sister to King Alfonso XIII.

That is true (though I don't think it has ever been conferred on an heir who was not the child of a reigning monarch or pretender before 1850), but I think the previous posters were advocating that titles of heirs be made automatic for daughters as they are with sons. While a few daughters of monarchs were indeed bestowed with the role and/or title of Princess of Asturias, the title was made automatic for heiresses (and heirs presumptive) only between 1850-1880 and after 1987.

Would it be possible to confer the title Duchess of Cornwall ad personam on an heiress even though she would not automatically receive it, similar to the way it was done for Spanish heiresses prior to 1850?

(On a tangential note, María de las Mercedes and her siblings were named "de Borbón y Austria" due to their mother being born an archduchess of Austria. The imperial family of Austria generally considered "of Austria" to be their family name, although republican governments designated them Habsburg-Lorraine. )

So the duchy wasn’t included in the succession change; what about the title of Prince of Wales? As it stands now, if George were to have a female heir, when he is king would he be able to (without more legal wrangling) make her Princess of Wales?

Per the Cameron administration, that is within the sovereign's power (see the Hansard link in my earlier post).

 

[Fijiro]

So the duchy wasn’t included in the succession change; what about the title of Prince of Wales? As it stands now, if George were to have a female heir, when he is king would he be able to (without more legal wrangling) make her Princess of Wales?

And when the Princess of Wales in her own right marries, does her husband become the Prince of Wales? This is where it will get tricky, since the Queen Regnant's husband doesn't become King but Prince consort (for fear that the King title would sound more powerful than the Queen regnant).

 

[JSH]

Question: Prince Michael of Kent has no peerage title. So what is the rule governing his son being 'Lord'? Is it because his father has an HRH? Or is it because he is the grandson of a duke? Also, if he had a son, would that son be a plain Mr.?

 

[Denville]

Question: Prince Michael of Kent has no peerage title. So what is the rule governing his son being 'Lord'? Is it because his father has an HRH? Or is it because he is the grandson of a duke? Also, if he had a son, would that son be a plain Mr.?

as the grandson of a King, Michael has the rank of PRince and HRH. but his children are just Lord and Lady. And Frederick Windsor's children are just Mr and Miss

 

[Roslyn]

And when the Princess of Wales in her own right marries, does her husband become the Prince of Wales? This is where it will get tricky, since the Queen Regnant's husband doesn't become King but Prince consort (for fear that the King title would sound more powerful than the Queen regnant).

The husband of a Princess of Wales could be given a Dukedom like Prince Philip received and then be made Prince Consort when his spouse becomes Queen. He cannot be made Prince of Wales for the same reason the husband of a queen regnant cannot be made king. This will remain the case as long as the centuries-old tradition of a woman taking her style/status from her husband, and not the other way around, is observed in the UK. And as long as there are different names for a male and female monarch.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Question: Prince Michael of Kent has no peerage title. So what is the rule governing his son being 'Lord'? Is it because his father has an HRH? Or is it because he is the grandson of a duke? Also, if he had a son, would that son be a plain Mr.?

The rule that great-grandchildren of a monarch in male line are styled as if they are children of Dukes is part of the 1917 Letters Patent:

it being Our Royal Will and Pleasure that the grandchildren of the sons of any such Sovereign in the direct male line [...] shall have and enjoy in all occasions the style and title enjoyed by the children of Dukes of these Our Realms.

Yes, a son of Lord Frederick Windsor would be a plain Mr.

This will remain the case as long as the centuries-old tradition of a woman taking her style/status from her husband, and not the other way around, is observed in the UK. And as long as there are different names for a male and female monarch.

I agree with the first prediction, which is the reason that wives of British Kings are automatically styled Queen but not vice versa, but not the second. In certain European countries surnames generally take differing masculine and feminine forms but it has nonetheless been made possible for a husband to take his surname from his wife. In Spain, the same applies to titles.

 

[Mbruno]

Question: Prince Michael of Kent has no peerage title. So what is the rule governing his son being 'Lord'? Is it because his father has an HRH? Or is it because he is the grandson of a duke? Also, if he had a son, would that son be a plain Mr.?

They are great-grandchildren of a British sovereign in male line and, as such, are entitled under the Letters Patent 1917 to the same style as that of children of a duke in the peerage of the United Kingdom.

 

[MARG]

The husband of a Princess of Wales could be given a Dukedom like Prince Philip received and then be made Prince Consort when his spouse becomes Queen. He cannot be made Prince of Wales for the same reason the husband of a queen regnant cannot be made king. This will remain the case as long as the centuries-old tradition of a woman taking her style/status from her husband, and not the other way around, is observed in the UK. And as long as there are different names for a male and female monarch.

You cannot use Prince Philip's situation as an example as, unlike Prince Albert when he married Queen Victoria, Prince Philip was forced to surrendered his nationality and his title to become plain old Lt Philip Mountbatten before he could marry princess Elizabeth.

The King bestowed the title of 'HRH Duke of Edinburgh' on Philip on his marriage. It was not until 1957 that Queen Ellizabeth, as a result of the awkwardness of his situation (the whole time he was courting Elizabeth he was known as HRH Prince Philip so people still called him Prince Philip) created him HRH The Prince Philip of the United Kingdom Great Briton and Northern just like his children. He was not made Prince Consort though.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Wouldn't any man who married an heiress to the British throne be fast-tracked to acquire British nationality before marriage, and in theory, couldn't a foreigner be granted a dukedom?

But it would be simpler and fairer to modify the centuries-old tradition of obliging married women to take their husbands' status and not the other way around, especially in a situation where the woman is expected to be the sovereign and head of the house. It would not be necessary to use the same title for male and female monarchs as is done in Japan for example, although that would admittedly be more logical than the Western system.

 

[Westfield Bakery]

I wonder if William becomes Prince of Wales, does George get the Cambridge title?

 

[LauraS3514]

I wonder if William becomes Prince of Wales, does George get the Cambridge title?

No. William will remain "Duke of Cambridge, Earl of Strathearn, and Baron Carrickfergus" until he becomes King, when those titles will merge with the crown and be eligible for re-granting. He will just have the heir's titles added to them, and as heir's titles are more important, William will be called by the most senior one he has. If they follow the precedent of the future George V, who was titled as "Duke of Cornwall and York" before being created "Prince of Wales" William may be known as "The Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge" (Duke of Rothsay" in Scotland) until he becomes "Prince of Wales."



George and his siblings' titles will change as well: from being "of Cambridge" they will progress to "of Cambridge and Cornwall" to "of Wales" and eventually just "The Prince George, The Princess Charlotte, and The Prince Louis" once William is himself King.

 

[alvinking]

No. William will remain "Duke of Cambridge, Earl of Strathearn, and Baron Carrickfergus" until he becomes King, when those titles will merge with the crown and be eligible for re-granting. He will just have the heir's titles added to them, and as heir's titles are more important, William will be called by the most senior one he has. If they follow the precedent of the future George V, who was titled as "Duke of Cornwall and York" before being created "Prince of Wales" William may be known as "The Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge" (Duke of Rothsay" in Scotland) until he becomes "Prince of Wales."



George and his siblings' titles will change as well: from being "of Cambridge" they will progress to "of Cambridge and Cornwall" to "of Wales" and eventually just "The Prince George, The Princess Charlotte, and The Prince Louis" once William is himself King.

George will never be The Prince George. The moment his siblings become The Princess Charlotte, and The Prince Louis, he will be The Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay in Scotland

 

[Osipi]

George will never be The Prince George. The moment his siblings become The Princess Charlotte, and The Prince Louis, he will be The Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay in Scotland

Yes he will. A good example is looking at the entry in the Court Circular that Princess Larisa posted in the Prince's Trust thread yesterday. It states "The Prince Charles, Duke of Rothesay, President, The Prince's Foundation, this evening held a Dinner for Supporters."

Charles does not use Duke of Cornwall when in Scotland.

 

[Nice Nofret]

Prince Charles is still everywhere The Prince Charles - the Titles are added and not substituted.
From the Moment his mother took the throne till the moment he succedes he will be: The Prince Charles ... plus all his other Titles

 

[Mbruno]

Prince George's most likely sequence of short styles is:


HRH Prince George of Cambridge
HRH Prince George of Cornwall and Cambridge
HRH Prince George of Wales
HRH The Duke of Cornwall
HRH The Prince of Wales
HM The King


Once he becomes HRH The Duke of Cornwall, he will also be HRH The Prince George.

 

[SLV]

Prince George's most likely sequence of short styles is:


HRH Prince George of Cambridge
HRH Prince George of Cornwall and Cambridge
HRH Prince George of Wales
HRH The Duke of Cornwall
HRH The Prince of Wales
HM The King


Once he becomes HRH The Duke of Cornwall, he will also be HRH The Prince George.

Between the D of Cornwall and P of Wales will probably be a title of his own when he marries. Or would that always be a 'lesser' title than Cornwall ?

 

[Mbruno]

Between the D of Cornwall and P of Wales will probably be a title of his own when he marries. Or would that always be a 'lesser' title than Cornwall ?

If George gets married before he becomes the Prince of Wales and is given another peerage, he will be, I believe, HRH The Duke of Cornwall and xxx, just as Prince William will probably be HRH The Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge before he becomes HRH The Prince of Wales.

 

[SLV]

Thanks. I thought as much

 

[Iluvbertie]

Between the D of Cornwall and P of Wales will probably be a title of his own when he marries. Or would that always be a 'lesser' title than Cornwall ?

More likely he will gain a title while Prince George of Wales as I doubt that he would be allowed to marry between becoming the Duke of Cornwall and The Prince of Wales - a period that will be more likely weeks or months rather than years while the court is in mourning for the death of Grandpa Charles.

Should he gain any title of his own - such as William's Duke of Cambridge title - he would use Cornwall first from becoming Duke of Cornwall as it is the older title.

The precedent for that would be George V who from January 1901 until November 1901 was HRH The Duke of Cornwall and York. In Scotland he was simply The Duke of Rothesay of course with Earl of Inverness ignored.

 

[LauraS3514]

George will never be The Prince George. The moment his siblings become The Princess Charlotte, and The Prince Louis, he will be The Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay in Scotland

As the son of the Sovereign he will most definitely be "The Prince George" regardless of any other titles he may have - he just won't be called "The Prince George," except as was noted above, in Scotland. Charles's full title is "His Royal Highness The Prince Charles Philip Arthur George, Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles and Prince and Great Steward of Scotland. KG, KT."