Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Somebody]

Yes, the dowager was still styled as HRH The Duchess of Albany between 1905 and 1919; examples can be looked up in the official gazette of the British government.

Thanks, I searched for 'The Duchess of Albany' and the first link in that period (from 1911, September 27) reads: Her Royal Highness the Duchess Dowager of Albany. The same title was used in 1902.

However, it seems that in the London Gazette when listing the procession at the same occasion (the coronation), she was indeed referenced as the Duchess of Albany; but her sister-in-law seated in the same carriage was called 'Dowager Duchess of Saxe-Coburg & Gotha'. So, apparently, she was either addressed as the The Duchess Dowager of Albany or with the shortened version The Duchess of Albany (as her daughter-in-law was in Germany and not known by that name; it seemed that the Duke and Duchess of Saxe-Coburg & Gotha were among the few family members not to attend the coronation in 1911).

 

[Gawin]

Yes, the dowager was still styled as HRH The Duchess of Albany between 1905 and 1919; examples can be looked up in the official gazette of the British government.

Yes, and she was referred to the Duchess of Albany in the Court Circular of November 17, 1905 (published in the November 18 1905 issue of The Times), one month after her son's marriage. Her daughter was referred to as the Duchess of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Thanks, I searched for 'The Duchess of Albany' and the first link in that period (from 1911) reads: Her Royal Highness the Duchess Dowager of Albany.

The same title was used in 1902.

But there are many more uses of the simple 'Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Albany', including but not limited to these:

1908
1909
1910
1910
1911

 

[Gawin]

Thanks, I searched for 'The Duchess of Albany' and the first link in that period (from 1911) reads: Her Royal Highness the Duchess Dowager of Albany.

The same title was used in 1902.

When I searched The Times Archive for "Dowager Duchess of Albany" I only found one article, from 1932, when her daughter Princess Alice visited a hospital the late Duchess had been connected with. Otherwise, she's called "the Duchess of Albany."

So as you point out, technically she was the Dowager Duchess but because the actual Duchess used another title, Dowager was seldom used.

 

[Somebody]

When I searched The Times Archive for "Dowager Duchess of Albany" I only found one article, from 1932, when her daughter Princess Alice visited a hospital the late Duchess had been connected with. Otherwise, she's called "the Duchess of Albany."

So as you point out, technically she was the Dowager Duchess but because the actual Duchess used another title, Dowager was seldom used.

It seemed the court used the title 'Duchess Dowager' instead of 'Dowager Duchess'... if they referred to her as 'dowager'.

 

[Somebody]

But there are many more uses of the simple 'Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Albany', including but not limited to these:

1908
1909
1910
1910
1911

I indeed found several examples to references as 'the Duchess of Albany', nonetheless, the royals DID have a title for this situation: The Duchess Dowager of X'... So, that would have been the point of reference and Marina apparently preferred not to be known as 'The Duchess Dowager of Kent'.

And personally, I don't think she would have been granted the style of 'Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent', had she not been a princess in her own right; as in that case she would have been 'Princess George, Duchess of Kent'. Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester seemed to have 'profited' from the permission her sister-in-law had had previously and while not a princess of the blood was granted permission to use a similar style.

 

[Gawin]

It seemed the court used the title 'Duchess Dowager' instead of 'Dowager Duchess'... if they referred to her as 'dowager'.

Oops, sorry! Your eyes are sharper than mine, I didn't catch the "Duchess Dowager" as opposed to "Dowager Duchess" in your post.

When I typed "Duchess Dowager of Albany" in The Times Archive I found one article, dated 1913, which does refer to her as the Duchess Dowager of Albany.

As I stated earlier, I also found one article which called her "Dowager Duchess of Albany."

But when I typed "Duchess of Albany" I found 1,561 articles from 1905-1922. These results include the Court Circular.

So it appears she was only occasionally referred to as Dowager.

 

[Durham]

Thank you for that discussion & those links. I have never heard the title duchess dowager before. It doesn't sound too mournful that way round really.

 

[Somebody]

What would be your thoughts on titles and peerages for the next generation. Some might argue Charlotte and Louis shouldn't be granted any additional titles and peerages but I'd like that tradition to continue and would hope that they will support their brother in his royal duties and not run off or make themselves impossible to keep like their uncle and great-uncle.

However, in normal circumstances prince Louis's children would be royal highnesses while Charlotte's children would not while higher in line of succession. So, I was wondering whether the following proposal could be a solution:

Either Charlotte could be given a dukedom (somewhat revolutionary but could consistently be applied to all children of a monarch - however, that would most likely also require their children to take her surname if their style would be derived from hers; or combine it with her husband's surname?) or her husband could be granted an earldom (like was done for previous princesses; with princess Anne as exception; that would be the easier solution); continuing the new practice that was introduced for Edward and Sophie's children, their children are styled as children of a peer (duke/earl) not as royal highnesses; as they aren't expected to carry out royal duties, unlike their parents. However, I am not sure what legal provisions would need to be in place for that to happen if their father wouldn't be a peer...

Louis is granted a dukedom, like the sons of monarch's before him, and like his sister's/E&S's children, they are styled as children of a duke.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Either Charlotte could be given a dukedom (somewhat revolutionary but could consistently be applied to all children of a monarch - however, that would most likely also require their children to take her surname if their style would be derived from hers; or combine it with her husband's surname?)

Historically, the British patrilineal naming convention has generally been followed even with children of peeresses in their own right. For example, the children of the late Countess Mountbatten were born with the family name Knatchbull, not Mountbatten.

However, I am not sure what legal provisions would need to be in place for that to happen if their father wouldn't be a peer...

Were Charlotte to be granted a dukedom (or earldom), her children would automatically under the rules of the peerage be styled in the same manner as the children of a male duke (or earl). (The daughters of Countess Mountbatten are styled Lady though their father was only a Baron.)

However, her husband would remain styled as a plain Mr., unless special provisions were made.

Without a peerage, I suppose Letters Patent would be issued if the Sovereign wished to grant courtesy titles to her children. The children of Prince Michael of Kent, who does not hold a peerage, are styled as children of dukes under the letters patent of King George V.

 

[Somebody]

Trying to work out the scenarios. First the easier one with Charlotte's husband being granted an earldom and no dukedom for Charlotte (she'll be granted the title of Princess Royal at some point):

In that case we could have in let's say 40 years time (during William's reign):
HRH The prince of Wales (George)
HRH The princess of Wales (George's wife)
TRH The princes/princesses of Wales (George's children)

HRH The princess royal (also: countess of Reading) (Charlotte)
The earl of Reading (Charlotte's husband; previously known as mr Strudwick)
Viscount Denbigh (Charlotte's eldest son; his father's subsidiary title)
Lady X Strudwick (Charlotte's daughters)
The Hon. Y Strudwick (Charlotte's younger sons)

HRH The duke of Cambridge (Louis based on a new creation; for ease working with the same remainders)
HRH The duchess of Cambridge (Louis's wife)
Earl of Strathearn (eldest son of Louis)
Lady Z Mountbatten-Windsor (daughters of Louis)
Lord T Mountbatten-Windsor (younger sons of Louis)


Now the more complicated scenarios for Charlotte (the others remain the same): Charlotte is granted a dukedom and her husband an earldom with courtesy titles derived from father (apparently, this scenario is unrealistic as they would derive their courtesy titles from their mother in that case):
HRH The duchess of Avondale (Charlotte)
The earl of Reading (Charlotte's husband)
Earl of Antrim (Charlotte's eldest son uses his mother's subsidiary title as that would be higher than his father's subsidiary title)
Lady Y Strudwick (any daugthers of Charlotte)
the Hon. Z Strudwick (younger sons of Charlotte)


Charlotte is granted a dukedom but her husband remains a commoner; no special provision is needed to make her children Lords and Ladies. They would normally take their surname from their father but the monarch could decide differently and allow them to for example be known as 'Strudwick-Windsor' to indicate their royal background (like was done with the duke of Edinburgh's family):
HRH The duchess of Avondale (Charlotte)
Mr. Strudwick (Charlotte's husband)
Earl of Antrim (Charlotte's eldest son using his mother's subsidiary title)
Lady Y Strudwick-Windsor (any daughters of Charlotte)
Lord Z Strudwick-Windsor (younger sons of Charlotte)

Based on the comments about prince Michael's children, another alternative scenario would be to award courtesy titles to her children by royal patent based on them being children of a princess of the UK (extension of the current LPs that grant those courtesy titles to children of princes of the UK):
HRH The princess royal (Charlotte)
Mr. Strudwick (Charlotte's husband)
Lord X Strudwick (for all sons)
Lady X Strudwick (for all daughters)

NOTE: Edited based on Tatiana Maria's excellent comments.

 

[Somebody]

Historically, the British patrilineal naming convention has generally been followed even with children of peeresses in their own right. For example, the children of the late Countess Mountbatten were born with the family name Knatchbull, not Mountbatten.

The difference being that their father also had a peerage which Charlotte's husband might not.

Were Charlotte to be granted a dukedom (or earldom), her children would automatically under the rules of the peerage be styled in the same manner as the children of a male duke (or earl). (The daughters of Countess Mountbatten are styled Lady though their father was only a Baron.)

However, her husband would remain styled as a plain Mr., unless special provisions were made.

Thanks that helps. So, if she has a higher peerage (or if her husband would have no peerage at all, her children would still derive their courtesy titles from her. That makes things much easier that I feared.

Without a peerage, I suppose Letters Patent would be issued if the Sovereign wished to grant courtesy titles to her children. The children of Prince Michael of Kent, who does not hold a peerage, are styled as children of dukes under the letters patent of King George V.

That's always a helpful way out but for the moment doesn't apply to children of princesses but it could be extended...

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Trying to work out the scenarios. First the easier one with Charlotte's husband being granted an earldom and no dukedom for Charlotte (she'll be granted the title of Princess Royal at some point):

[...]

HRH The princess royal, countess of Reading (Charlotte)

As Princess Royal she most likely would not use "Countess of Reading", as generally Princess Anne was no longer known as Mrs. Mark Phillips and Princess Mary was no longer known as Countess of Harewood after being granted the title of Princess Royal.

Charlotte is granted a dukedom and her husband an earldom with courtesy titles derived from father:
HRH The duchess of Avondale (Charlotte)
The earl of Reading (Charlotte's husband)
Earl of Antrim (Charlotte's eldest son uses his mother's subsidiary title as that would be higher than his father's subsidiary title)
Lady Y Strudwick (any daugthers of Charlotte)
the Hon. Z Strudwick (younger sons of Charlotte)

Her daughters and younger sons would also derive their courtesy titles from their mother as these would be higher in rank than the courtesy titles they could derive from their father. It would be Lady for any daughters (the daughters of an earl are also Lady, but their precedence falls below the daughters of a duchess) and Lord for younger sons.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The difference being that their father also had a peerage which Charlotte's husband might not.

Another example from the extended royal family is Flora Fraser, Lady Saltoun, the daughter-in-law of Princess Patricia of Connaught. Her husband Alexander Ramsay had no peerage, but their children were born as Ramsays rather than Frasers.

Of course, times are changing and even in Britain it has become less and less unthinkable for children to take the surname of their mother.

However, for Charlotte there would be the problem of the Sovereign's Will. Does the 1960 declaration of Queen Elizabeth II that "My descendants other than descendants enjoying the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess and female descendants who marry and their descendants shall bear the name of Mountbatten-Windsor" override the common-law rights of women to keep their surnames and parents to give their children any surname they please?

Even if it does not, if King Charles/King William believes that children should always bear their father's surname, would he perhaps have the authority as king and head of the family to prohibit Charlotte and her husband from giving their children the surname Mountbatten-Windsor or Strudwick-Windsor even if that is what the couple both want?

 

[Somebody]

As Princess Royal she most likely would not use "Countess of Reading", as generally Princess Anne was no longer known as Mrs. Mark Phillips and Princess Mary was no longer known as Countess of Harewood after being granted the title of Princess Royal.

Her daughters and younger sons would also derive their courtesy titles from their mother as these would be higher in rank than the courtesy titles they could derive from their father. It would be Lady for any daughters (the daughters of an earl are also Lady, but their precedence falls below the daughters of a duchess) and Lord for younger sons.

Why would letters patent not suffice for her children when they sufficed to arrange it for the children of Prince Michael of Kent?

As you may have noticed, I responded to your post afterI presented the above. So, my post was based on my limited knowledge of the system but I am happy to change my post accordingly now I've learned something new. Of course it was not possible to incorporate your comments in my original post before reading them

 

[Tatiana Maria]

As you may have noticed, I responded to your post afterI presented the above. So, my post was based on my limited knowledge of the system but I am happy to change my post accordingly now I've learned something new. Of course it was not possible to incorporate your comments in my original post before reading them

You responded ten minutes after I made the post, so I unfortunately had no way to know you hadn't read it.
But I have already deleted the part that you addressed in your later post.

 

[Somebody]

You responded ten minutes after I made the post, so I unfortunately had no way to know you hadn't read it.
But I have already deleted the part that you addressed in your later post.

Thanks for thinking highly of me - but I'm not that quick in figuring out all of that and come up with reasonable names for the various dukes, earls and viscounts in less than 10 minutes. I continued working on it after posting my previous post, so it took me about 40 minutes

My apologies for the capital letters in my previous post. Those were uncalled for (and have been edited).

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Thanks for thinking highly of me - but I'm not that quick in figuring out all of that and come up with reasonable names for the various dukes, earls and viscounts in less than 10 minutes. I continued working on it after posting my previous post, so it took me about 40 minutes

I will bear that in mind when reading your future posts. ? I customarily check for new posts before submitting (long) responses, as that is useful when there is a new reply to the thread which changes what I intended to say - so I was not assuming you necessarily wrote the entire post within 10 minutes.

No worries about the unedited post; I have edited the quote and my reply.

 

[Eskimo]

I think will all the problems with spares in the RF, I think massive changes will need to be made. I would not be surprised if Charlotte and Louis were encouraged to have their own careers and were never granted any additional titles (expect Princess Royal for Charlotte)

 

[Durham]

I would be surprised if the granting of peerages continued. I can't see William wanting this.

I suspect the children of younger sons/daughters of the monarch/direct line will be plain Mr/Miss/Ms just like Peter & Zara.

What will be interesting is whether any future husband of Charlotte will be a prince.

 

[Eskimo]

I would be surprised if the granting of peerages continued. I can't see William wanting this.

I suspect the children of younger sons/daughters of the monarch/direct line will be plain Mr/Miss/Ms just like Peter & Zara.

What will be interesting is whether any future husband of Charlotte will be a prince.

Why would the future husband of Charlotte be a prince (assuming she is interested in the opposite sex) when the husbands of her great-aunt Anne were not made princes and even her great-grandfather was not made a prince-despite being married to the heir.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Why would the future husband of Charlotte be a prince (assuming she is interested in the opposite sex) when the husbands of her great-aunt Anne were not made princes and even her great-grandfather was not made a prince-despite being married to the heir.

Potentially, for the same reason that Charlotte's future interest or disinterest in the opposite sex is now considered relevant, as opposed to being expected to marry a foreign prince or duke whether she is romantically interested in him or not: The status of women has evolved and it continues to evolve.

 

[Somebody]

Why would the future husband of Charlotte be a prince (assuming she is interested in the opposite sex) when the husbands of her great-aunt Anne were not made princes and even her great-grandfather was not made a prince-despite being married to the heir.

I don't think Charlotte's husband would be made prince in his own right. However, the duke of Edinburgh (a former prince of Greece and Denmark) was made a prince of the UK in his own right later on.

 

[Durham]

The status of women has evolved and it continues to evolve.

Yes indeed. I raised the subject of Charlotte's putative husband because in 20/30 years time it may seem perfectly natural for the spouse of a princess to be treated in exactly the same way as the spouse of a prince. So any husband (not being created a prince like Philip) automatically acquires the title of prince by marrying a princess. I don't know.

By the same token the granting of dukedoms may come to be seen as silly, not in a disrespectful way but rather in the sense of no longer being seen as relevant or appropriate to the sort of society that Britain may by then have become. A sort of historical curiosity if you like.

All speculation of course.

 

[Mbruno]

I am joining the discussion late, but I guess the crux of the problem is the British custom of wives taking their husbands’ titles and styles, but the reverse not being true. For Charlotte’s children, I assume the normal rules for styles of children of peers would apply if Charlotte were given a peerage ( it remains to be seen what kind of remainder her peerage would have ).


In Spain, the husband of a Duchess in her own right has always been a Duke and even the husband of the Princess of Asturias, at least according to the RD 1368/1987 , is still the Prince of Asturias. Even the husband of a reigning Queen used to be a King and , to go back to a previous discussion in the forum, that did not affect precedence because the order of precedence was, as it still is:

1) King or Queen (of Spain)
2) Queen consort or consort of the Queen (of Spain)

For some reason, however, the Spaniards decided in 1987 to change their long-held tradition and style the consort of the Queen simply as Prince as in the UK, but kept equal courtesy titles for other husbands ( of duchesses, marquises, countesses, etc.) . Spouses of infantes and Infantas were left both without any title , but it was still a gender-neutral rule, I.e. it applied equally to men and women.

 

[Durham]

Thank you for that. That's very interesting.

 

[Eskimo]

Potentially, for the same reason that Charlotte's future interest or disinterest in the opposite sex is now considered relevant, as opposed to being expected to marry a foreign prince or duke whether she is romantically interested in him or not: The status of women has evolved and it continues to evolve.

This has nothing to do with the status of women. If Charlotte is not the heir there is no point in her husband having any titles or styles

 

[Tatiana Maria]

This has nothing to do with the status of women. If Charlotte is not the heir there is no point in her husband having any titles or styles

But what is the point in Louis's (and possibly Archie's) wife having royal titles and styles?

 

[Mbruno]

But what is the point in Louis's (and possibly Archie's) wife having royal titles and styles?

Louis will be a son of the King ( probably), so I think it is rrasonable that he should have a royal title and style . In Archie’s case, my opinion is that, if the system were to be reformed, he should not have any royal title as he will be only a possible grandson of a King not in direct line.

As for Louis’ wife or Charlotte’s husband , I think that:

1) Either they should both take the title and style of their spouses ( which is not too much in my opinion) , OR

2) Neither of them should have royal titles and only George’s wife should be titled ( which is actually the Spaniish system I mentioned before for spouses of children of a King).

Either way, the system would be gender neutral, which is very important to me.

As for peerages, I think they should be given to both sons and daughters of the King, except the heir who already has a special title like Prince of Wales ( which should be extended the women in their own right too) , but royal peerages should be life peerages only ( which is the Spanish or Swedish system).

People say hereditary peerages for princes are harmless , but George V and Elizabeth II have created at least three ducal lines ( Gloucester, Kent and Sussex) and two commital lines ( Snowdon and Wessex) that are likely to endure over multiple generations ( the Wessex line may be absorbed into another ducal Edinburgh line if King Charles III só decides). And more lines would have been created if Angus Ogilvy and Mark Phillips had not turned down their earldoms. That is actually quite a lot of “ new hereditary nobility” by modern standards. Looking ahead, if the system is kept the way it is, Louis will probably start a new Cambridge ducal line too, which will persist if he had sons.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

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.