Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Somebody]

I think Denville's argument is that as a married peeress she should not use her given name(s) at all. But in legal documents, it is correct form for peers and peeresses (no matter if they are royal or non-royal) to include their given names or even their surnames. As Somebody posted, the birth certificates for the children of the Duke of Cambridge (and for Archie Mountbatten-Windsor) showed the given names (e.g. William Arthur Philip Louis) of both parents, though not their surnames.

Exactly; the question was what the equivalent was for Meghan compared to the name Harry used on a legal document.

While the princes by blood will use "HRH Prince William/Henry (+ all given names), Duke of Cambridge/Sussex" (or in Harry's case, since he isn't supposed to use the HRH in business, he will drop that part);
the princesses by marriage will use "HRH Catherine Elizabeth/Rachel Meghan, the Duchess of Cambridge/Sussex" (or in Meghan's case, since she isn't supposed to use the HRH in business, she will drop that part).

 

[Jacknch]

Please note that several posts have been edited or deleted as they contained snarky/bickering responses. Please avoid posting responses (whether they be questions or answers) that drag what is supposed to be a mature and informative discussion into a point-scoring or agenda-driven quarrel. I'm sure it really will be time to move on soon since we can't keep going round in circles answering and re-answering the same question indefinately.

 

[Durham]

As many on here will already know of course peers, their spouses & children, have used/do use their title in the way of a surname for business/professional purposes. Three that come to mind:

David Linley instead of Armstrong Jones (Viscount Linley)
Bill Burlington instead of Cavendish (Earl of Burlington)
George Sunderland instead of Spencer-Churchill (Earl of Sunderland)

These examples are courtesy titles of course but there are instances of those with substantive titles following the same usage, even dukes. It also avoids for women the awkwardness of sounding divorced.

Following this accepted usage the 11th Duke of Devonshire (surname Cavendish) published under the name of Andrew Devonshire.

His duchess published under the name Deborah Devonshire.

 

[victoriaalix]

If the queen dies in five years, Charles would only be 76 going on 77. There is no reason to believe he wont live well into his 90's like both of his parents, and his grandmother lived over 100. He would have a good 20 years to reign before he died. One cant argue that Charles cant be a good ruler in his 90's, considering his mother and the role she still serves.

Prince William as the new POW would just step up and do more of the travel and duties like his father currently does. That's the natural way of things in the BRF.

Following precedent, Charles would definitely take the throne even if he won't be there as long as his mother was.

Also, once Prince William becomes 2nd in line, is he automatically the Prince of Wales or does the new King have the prerogative to give him a different title to go with his status as the direct heir?

 

[Denville]

Following precedent, Charles would definitely take the throne even if he won't be there as long as his mother was.

Also, once Prince William becomes 2nd in line, is he automatically the Prince of Wales or does the new King have the prerogative to give him a different title to go with his status as the direct heir?

No, the tile of Prince of wales has to be given by the monarch. It does not come to the heir automatically. I can't see why a King or queen would give his heir a different title.

 

[LauraS3514]

Following precedent, Charles would definitely take the throne even if he won't be there as long as his mother was.

Also, once Prince William becomes 2nd in line, is he automatically the Prince of Wales or does the new King have the prerogative to give him a different title to go with his status as the direct heir?

Prince William will automatically become "Duke of Cornwall", "Duke of Rothsay" and other titles as the oldest son and heir of the King. "Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester" must be created each time, and have been held by King's grandsons in the past (most recently by the future George III); this is not possible for Duke of Cornwall title as it is restricted to the eldest son who is also the heir.

 

[cdm]

Abdications

So then theoretically it’s possible to have a King Charles, William as Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge and George as Prince of Wales?

 

[Osipi]

George would only be eligible to be the Prince of Wales when his father is King. One of the conditions is that the Prince of Wales is also the heir apparent. So the answer is no to your theory. ?

https://www.britannica.com/topic/prince-of-Wales

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

So then theoretically it’s possible to have a King Charles, William as Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge and George as Prince of Wales?

It must about be the direct successor himself. The easiest to remember: Cornwall = automatic, Wales = not automatic.

1948
HRH Prince Charles of Edinburgh

1952
HRH The Duke of Cornwall (automatically, as Heir to HM The Queen)

1958
HRH The Prince of Wales (by creation, as Heir to HM The Queen)

 

[Countessmeout]

It must about be the direct successor himself. The easiest to remember:


The Heir always and by automatism holds the title Duke of Cornwall (Duke of Rothesay).


The Heir can receive the title Prince of Wales.

No the eldest son of the monarch is always and by automation, Duke of Cornwall.

If Charles dropped dead tomorrow, William would be the heir but he would not be Duke of Cornwall, as he would never be the eldest son of the monarch.

As it stands, if Charlotte was the first born child, she would be heir to the throne but she would not automatically be Duchess of Cornwall when her father is king, unless things are changed.

Technically neither title is assured, unless you are heir to your parent. And first born. If Charles had died before he had children, Andrew could be POW but never Duke of Cornwall as he was not the first son.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The best example of an heir apparent who wasn't Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay etc is George III.

His father - Frederick held both of those titles from the instant his father became George II. Prior to that he had been Duke of Edinburgh, a title his grandfather, George I, had given him.

When Frederick died his eldest son, George, became the heir apparent and he also inherited his father's title of Duke of Edinburgh which is the title he used from the 31st March to the 20th April 1751. On the 20th April his grandfather, George II, created him Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester.

Later, when George III, himself became a father of a son that son instantly became Duke of Cornwall etc because he was the eldest son and heir apparent to the King. A week after his birth his father created him as Prince of Wales.

The same thing with Edward VII - born as Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay etc but not created Prince of Wales for nearly a month.

Edward VII waited nearly 10 months to create his son as Prince of Wales so from 20th January 1901 until the 9th November the future George V was known as the Duke of Cornwall and York (except in Scotland where he was Duke of Rothesay).

George V waited about six weeks before making the future Edward VIII Prince of Wales while Elizabeth II waited well over 6 years before creating her Duke of Cornwall, Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester.

 

[Claire]

Has anything been changed with the female succession to say that if George for example has a female heir - it becomes Princess of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall and Rothesay?

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

No the eldest son of the monarch is always and by automation, Duke of Cornwall.

If Charles dropped dead tomorrow, William would be the heir but he would not be Duke of Cornwall, as he would never be the eldest son of the monarch.

As it stands, if Charlotte was the first born child, she would be heir to the throne but she would not automatically be Duchess of Cornwall when her father is king, unless things are changed.

Technically neither title is assured, unless you are heir to your parent. And first born. If Charles had died before he had children, Andrew could be POW but never Duke of Cornwall as he was not the first son.

Yes, of course, you are completely right. I had a normal situation in mind, not one in which the monarch's eldest son died before the kingship.

 

[Stefan]

Technically neither title is assured, unless you are heir to your parent. And first born. If Charles had died before he had children, Andrew could be POW but never Duke of Cornwall as he was not the first son.

He could as the future George V. was also not the oldest son of his parents.

 

[Iluvbertie]

George V was the heir apparent, when he became Duke of Cornwall and was created Prince of Wales, as was Charles I - another who wasn't the eldest son of his father.

There was some debate about whether Henry VIII should be Duke of Cornwall after the death of his older brother, Arthur, but eventually it was decided that he was eligible and the precedence set then has been followed ever since. They took from April 1502 until October 1502 to reach that decision.

To hold the titles Duke of Cornwall and Duke of Rothesay a person must met two critieria:

1. be the eldest LIVING son of the monarch and

2. be the heir apparent to the throne.

As for changes for a princess to be Duchess of Cornwall or Princess of Wales - that hasn't happened but the income of the Duchy of Cornwall will now automatically go to the heir apparent regardless of the gender of that heir. That was a provision of the Sovereign Grant Act.

An heir presumptive still wouldn't be eligible for the income of the Duchy e.g. if George becomes King and doesn't have any children then Charlotte will be his heir presumptive but not eligible under the existing laws for the income of the Duchy.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

So then theoretically it’s possible to have a King Charles, William as Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge and George as Prince of Wales?

George would only be eligible to be the Prince of Wales when his father is King. One of the conditions is that the Prince of Wales is also the heir apparent. So the answer is no to your theory. ?

https://www.britannica.com/topic/prince-of-Wales

It must about be the direct successor himself. The easiest to remember: Cornwall = automatic, Wales = not automatic.

It is indeed the custom to reserve the title for male heirs apparent, but in contrast to the Dukedom of Cornwall, there is no legislative limitation on the title. So yes, it would theoretically be possible for the monarch to confer the title of Prince(ss) of Wales on whomever she or he pleases (unless the government forbade it, I suppose).

Read more here on the debate in 1943-44 about whether Princess Elizabeth, the then heiress presumptive, ought to be created Princess of Wales.

Questions about British Styles and Titles

As for changes for a princess to be Duchess of Cornwall or Princess of Wales - that hasn't happened but the income of the Duchy of Cornwall will now automatically go to the heir apparent regardless of the gender of that heir. That was a provision of the Sovereign Grant Act.

An heir presumptive still wouldn't be eligible for the income of the Duchy e.g. if George becomes King and doesn't have any children then Charlotte will be his heir presumptive but not eligible under the existing laws for the income of the Duchy.

Charlotte would receive the income as heiress presumptive, but you are right that she would not be Duchess of Cornwall.

Sovereign Grant Act 2011

 

[Durham]

What are people's opinions on reverting back to the old practise of not usually according the title of prince(ess) to anyone except the prince of Wales & his wife?

There doesn't seem to have been any consistency to styling the (younger) children or grandchildren of monarchs before the Hanoverians. I read conflicting accounts of how they were referred to.

Or are we too accustomed to the idea that the son or daughter of a king/queen regnant must be a prince or princess?

 

[LauraS3514]

No the eldest son of the monarch is always and by automation, Duke of Cornwall.

Technically neither title is assured, unless you are heir to your parent. And first born. If Charles had died before he had children, Andrew could be POW but never Duke of Cornwall as he was not the first son.

In this case, pre-2013 and the new Succession to the Crown Act, Andrew WOULD have become Duke of Cornwall as the eldest LIVING son of The Queen who was also Heir Apparent.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

What are people's opinions on reverting back to the old practise of not usually according the title of prince(ess) to anyone except the prince of Wales & his wife?

There doesn't seem to have been any consistency to styling the (younger) children or grandchildren of monarchs before the Hanoverians. I read conflicting accounts of how they were referred to.

Or are we too accustomed to the idea that the son or daughter of a king/queen regnant must be a prince or princess?

Across most of Europe, people are also accustomed to the idea that a legitimate son or daughter of a prince must be a prince or princess. Nonetheless, some European royal families (including the British) have bucked modern practice and reverted to reserving royal titles for the core family members.

Given that the tradition of titling all children of European monarchs as prince or princess has been practiced for centuries by now, I will not expect it to be reverted rapidly. However, provided that the current trends progress, I can imagine European royal families reverting to the old practice a number of generations from now. Several royal families in Europe have already come to the decisions that younger children of monarchs must earn their own money in the private sector rather than working for the monarchy, but will be forbidden from using their royal titles to earn money. It would take only one more step to deciding not to accord them titles which they will anyway be forbidden to use in their everyday lives.

 

[Durham]

An interesting perspective & one which I share. The younger children of the British monarch could be styled The lord or The Lady ....

An example would be The Lady Elizabeth as in Tudor usage for instance. Similar but subtly different to how the younger children of dukes are styled. The monarch is after all the Duke of Lancaster.

In a funny sort of way it sounds more romantic & also more authentically English (not that they're just English royalty of course).

 

[Tatiana Maria]

As you say, the Letters Patent issued by King George V can be (and on several occasions already have been) overruled by his successors, and it will fall to King Charles to decide whether to follow them with regard to Archie. But the suggestion from at least one palace source is that he will, and the number of HRHs will thus be increased.

This was way before the recent events happened. I cannot imagine Archie becoming HRH Prince Archie of Sussex given the decisions his parents recently made. It would make no sense at all for Louise and James as children of senior full-time working members of the BRF to not be HRH while a boy (albeit grandson of the king by then) living in Canada with his parents who are no longer known as HRH as they officially departed from the working BRF will be HRH.

However, much regarding this couple has been inconsistent, so you never know.

No, I don't think Archie will be HRH. Possbily if the Sussexes return but not even then, most likely.

I completely agree. I find it almost inconceivable at this stage to think that Archie will ever have the HRH. I suppose it's possible if circumstances change significantly but I can think of only one or two changes that would lead me to believe that he would ever receive the HRH.

In wishing Archie a happy birthday, the Queen's household called him "Archie Mountbatten-Windsor", but the households of the Prince of Wales and the Duke of Cambridge called him simply "Archie". I wonder if that is a signal that the intention for him to become "Prince Archie" in the next reign is maintained.

If the recent events were to impact Archie's future title, it would have been the rational thing to announce that at the same time as the announcement that his parents would refrain from using their HRHs. But no such announcement has been forthcoming.

In at least one aspect Archie has already been treated like a Prince: His birth was recorded in The London Gazette, as it was for the Cambridge princes(ses) and the York princesses. The births of the Wessex children were not recorded in the Gazette.

 

[Somebody]

In wishing Archie a happy birthday, the Queen's household called him "Archie Mountbatten-Windsor", but the households of the Prince of Wales and the Duke of Cambridge called him simply "Archie". I wonder if that is a signal that the intention for him to become "Prince Archie" in the next reign is maintained.

I wouldn't read to much into that; why would they use a surname to wish their grandchild/nephew a happy birthday?! Clarence house didn't say Prince Louis of Cambridge/Princess Charlotte of Cambridge - but just 'prince Louis' and 'princess Charlotte' when wishing them a happy birthday.

If the recent events were to impact Archie's future title, it would have been the rational thing to announce that at the same time as the announcement that his parents would refrain from using their HRHs. But no such announcement has been forthcoming.

In at least one aspect Archie has already been treated like a Prince: His birth was recorded in The London Gazette, as it was for the Cambridge princes(ses) and the York princesses. The births of the Wessex children were not recorded in the Gazette.

I do agree that would have been a logical timing; maybe they want to wait until after the 'review period' of one year has passed?

 

[Durham]

I just don't see the point of (male line) grandchildren outside of the direct line being given any styles or titles other than courtesy titles that might come from their father's peerage. Even then I don't see the point of continuing giving peerages to younger children of monarchs either.

We need to move away from this bloated system. In terms of a thousand year old plus monarchy this plethora of HRH's & princes is relatively new anyway as I've already said.

A streamlined simpler system is the way forward. I've no doubt most people in Britain would be happy with that.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Questions about British Styles and Titles

I've no doubt most people in Britain would be happy with that.

To counter that, I’ve no doubt most people in Britain couldn’t care less who has a HRH or not.

 

[Durham]

To counter that, I’ve no doubt most people in Britain couldn’t care less who has a HRH or not.

Well I guess without asking them we don't know. I'm surprised though that you would think most people couldn't care less. Most people I know whose views I'm aware of would be happy to see "the royals" reduced in number.

There again that's anecdote and anecdote isn't fact. So, who knows.

 

[Denville]

Well I guess without asking them we don't know. I'm surprised though that you would think most people couldn't care less. Most people I know whose views I'm aware of would be happy to see "the royals" reduced in number.

There again that's anecdote and anecdote isn't fact. So, who knows.

I'd agree that most people don't think about it much and couldn't tell yu how many royals have a title or HRH. If they think about it, many/most will tend to say they'd like to see the "royals reduced in number", but cutting back ther HRH's wont do that, because waht they really mean si they want the cost of the monarchy to be less.

 

[victor1319]

I just don't see the point of (male line) grandchildren outside of the direct line being given any styles or titles other than courtesy titles that might come from their father's peerage. ...

We need to move away from this bloated system. In terms of a thousand year old plus monarchy this plethora of HRH's & princes is relatively new anyway as I've already said.

Funny, I am for example thinking, the British Royal Family spare heirs' families are too fast "phased out". The Princesses Eugenie and Beatrice get no money at all from the royal coffers. Their father was quite the businessman and partly somehow abusing his title to rake some monies in... but Eugenie and Beatrice, the Princesses, have now no own budget for their own plannings to become somebody. They have to be nice to daddy or go broke - the Princesses!


But anyway: You are saying too many, I feel different. Perhaps the numbers can talk here... Germany is said to have 40,000 noble persons for more than 80 million commoners. 1/2000th of the population have a title then.


Great Britain: I don't know! What, around 430 peerages? Than I found this here: 600 families...
https://inews.co.uk/news/long-reads...s-double-wealth-empire-exclusive-study-498179


So, maybe 5times as much noble persons? 3,000?
That would be on around 60 million inhabitants be what, 1/20,000th, or 10 times less per capita then in Germany?


I do not know! Some here in the forums even say, Barman Jack is a nobleman... So, how many of them are there?


But to close the circle: The leading family of the Commonwealth, the British Royal Family, is rather small! And all too fast it's members are losing their titles, if their ancestors were only "spares". I mean, from time to time something can be read about the "obscure Windors", but even then mostly about those which made it. Would be a nice tv broadcast: an inverse "Who do you think you are?" about the royal Windsor Barristas, Waiters and Plumbers!

 

[Durham]

If they think about it, many/most will tend to say they'd like to see the "royals reduced in number", but cutting back ther HRH's wont do that, because waht they really mean si they want the cost of the monarchy to be less.

We know that of course but it's about perception.

I'm certainly not aware of any groundswell of opinion to increase their number!

 

[Durham]

But anyway: You are saying too many, I feel different. Perhaps the numbers can talk here... Germany is said to have 40,000 noble persons for more than 80 million commoners. 1/2000th of the population have a title then.


Great Britain: I don't know! What, around 430 peerages? Than I found this here: 600 families...
https://inews.co.uk/news/long-reads...s-double-wealth-empire-exclusive-study-498179


So, maybe 5times as much noble persons? 3,000?
That would be on around 60 million inhabitants be what, 1/20,000th, or 10 times less per capita then in Germany?


I do not know! Some here in the forums even say, Barman Jack is a nobleman... So, how many of them are there?

The peerage has always been relatively small. Lots of relatives, the upper ten thousand as they were termed in the late c19th (originally a US term), although that included the gentry as well. Many European nobilities had/have huge numbers of title holders. The French aristocracy of the Ancien Regime was very large, as was the Polish I think.

Jack Brocklesbank would be part of the upper ten thousand because of his family links I think possibly, I'm not entirely sure.

The Commonwealth is an odd institution. A curious survival but I'm not aware that it's of any great importance or relevance compared to other intergovernmental organisations. Its great population is mostly down to India being a member.

 

[Denville]

The peerage has always been relatively small. Lots of relatives, the upper ten thousand as they were termed in the late c19th (originally a US term), although that included the gentry as well. Many European nobilities had/have huge numbers of title holders. The French aristocracy of the Ancien Regime was very large, as was the Polish I think.

Jack Brocklesbank would be part of the upper ten thousand because of his family links I think possibly, I'm not entirely sure.

The Commonwealth is an odd institution. A curious survival but I'm not aware that it's of any great importance or relevance compared to other intergovernmental organisations. Its great population is mostly down to India being a member.

Jack Is gentry, from a "well born" family and I think there's a baronetcy in there.. but no title of nobility. Yes the peerage in the UK has always been small.. whereas in Europe most countries had a much larger number of noble families.