Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Richard wasn't the eldest son though.. he was the eldest living son. So Im not sure if he would have used the subsidiary title.. Also he had the rank of Prince.. so that's higher....

I was asking about Richard's eldest son, Alexander (in the scenario with his grandfather, Prince Richard's father Prince Henry, still being alive).
 
I was asking about Richard's eldest son, Alexander (in the scenario with his grandfather, Prince Richard's father Prince Henry, still being alive).
Yes I know. But if the old Duke had still been alive, Richard was the next heir and as far as I know he iddn't use the title Earl of Ulster.. He was Prince Richard as the grandson of a monarch.. and his son would have probalby been Lord Alexander Windsor... as the great grandson...
 
Yes I know. But if the old Duke had still been alive, Richard was the next heir and as far as I know he iddn't use the title Earl of Ulster.. He was Prince Richard as the grandson of a monarch.. and his son would have probalby been Lord Alexander Windsor... as the great grandson...

I see, apologies for the misunderstanding. I am not sure the fact that Prince Richard was known as Prince Richard of Gloucester (on the basis that being a prince outranked being a courtesy peer) as the heir apparent would have deprived his non-princely son of the same privilege. The eldest son of HRH Prince Arthur of Connaught and HRH Princess Arthur of Connaught used Earl of Macduff by courtesy, in spite of neither of his parents being styled as a peer.
 
Yes I know. But if the old Duke had still been alive, Richard was the next heir and as far as I know he iddn't use the title Earl of Ulster.. He was Prince Richard as the grandson of a monarch.. and his son would have probalby been Lord Alexander Windsor... as the great grandson...



That’s interesting that Prince Richard did not use Earl of Ulster (courtesy titles). Before John Manners became the 9th Duke of Rutland in 1906, he was styled as Marquess of Granby (1st Subsidiary titles) between 1925 and 1906 when his father was the 8th Duke (Henry Manners) John Manners himself was the eldest surviving son, his older brother Robert Manners, Lord Haddon (1885–1894) (2nd subsidiary title) died before their father succeeded the Dukedom.

But then again, it could be different for Royal peers, especially when Richard is already styled as HRH Prince as the son of the son of the monarch (1917 LP).
 
That’s interesting that Prince Richard did not use Earl of Ulster (courtesy titles). Before John Manners became the 9th Duke of Rutland in 1906, he was styled as Marquess of Granby (1st Subsidiary titles) between 1925 and 1906 when his father was the 8th Duke (Henry Manners) John Manners himself was the eldest surviving son, his older brother Robert Manners, Lord Haddon (1885–1894) (2nd subsidiary title) died before their father succeeded the Dukedom.

But then again, it could be different for Royal peers, especially when Richard is already styled as HRH Prince as the son of the son of the monarch (1917 LP).

I think his being Prince Richard would mean that it was a higher title than Earl of Ulster.. so he used that..and I think Alexander would have ben Lord Alex till his father inherited.
 
Wouldn't he have been entitled to assume a courtesy peerage? The Letters Patent of 1917 stipulated that "the grandchildren of the sons of any such Sovereign in the direct male line (save only the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales) shall have and enjoy in all occasions the style and title enjoyed by the children of Dukes of these Our Realms", and the eldest sons of non-royal dukes of the realm enjoy the privilege of being styled as a peer, using one of the subsidiary peerages of their father.


I interpret the text of the LPs to mean that Alexander would have a courtesy title only if his father were already the duke, which is not the scenario you describe. Otherwise, he would have the generic style of the son of a duke of these realms, which would be Lord xxx Windsor.
 
Last edited:
That’s interesting that Prince Richard did not use Earl of Ulster (courtesy titles). Before John Manners became the 9th Duke of Rutland in 1906, he was styled as Marquess of Granby (1st Subsidiary titles) between 1925 and 1906 when his father was the 8th Duke (Henry Manners) John Manners himself was the eldest surviving son, his older brother Robert Manners, Lord Haddon (1885–1894) (2nd subsidiary title) died before their father succeeded the Dukedom.

But then again, it could be different for Royal peers, especially when Richard is already styled as HRH Prince as the son of the son of the monarch (1917 LP).

Prince Richard's older brother was born as the heir apparent to Gloucester and he was always styled as Prince William of Gloucester throughout his life. The current Duke of Kent was also born as Prince Edward of Kent and was styled like that until his father died. Neither ever used the courtesy titles from their father as their own princely titles took precedence - i.e. title in own right takes precedence over courtesy title.

When Prince Richard became the heir apparent to his father's title, when his older brother died, his style didn't change as he was already HRH Prince Richard of Gloucester. His titles changed on the 10th June, 1974 when he became HRH The Duke of Gloucester - and his wife went from being Princess Richard of Gloucester to HRH The Duchess of Gloucester.
 
I see, apologies for the misunderstanding. I am not sure the fact that Prince Richard was known as Prince Richard of Gloucester (on the basis that being a prince outranked being a courtesy peer) as the heir apparent would have deprived his non-princely son of the same privilege. The eldest son of HRH Prince Arthur of Connaught and HRH Princess Arthur of Connaught used Earl of Macduff by courtesy, in spite of neither of his parents being styled as a peer.

Interesting question. I am with you in thinking that Alexander being the heir apparent's heir apparent would have made him use a courtesy title. I am not sure whether he would have used 'Earl of Ulster' or 'Lord Culloden'; my guess would be he would use the 'highest available' courtesy title; and as his father was never going to use the 'Earl of Ulster' title, that one would have been available from birth.

Wouldn't he have been entitled to assume a courtesy peerage? The Letters Patent of 1917 stipulated that "the grandchildren of the sons of any such Sovereign in the direct male line (save only the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales) shall have and enjoy in all occasions the style and title enjoyed by the children of Dukes of these Our Realms", and the eldest sons of non-royal dukes of the realm enjoy the privilege of being styled as a peer, using one of the subsidiary peerages of their father.
Given that the implications of the final sentence are already applied to grandsons of royal dukes (before their father is a non-royal duke), for example, Alexander's son Xan is styled as 'Lord Culloden'; and his cousin George's son is known as Lord Downpatrick. I don't see a reason why that same logical wouldn't apply to Alexander himself if his father had not yet been the duke.
 
Last edited:
She did state at one point that Archie & the other Sussex children will become prince/princesses once Charles becomes king and mentioned what she called the "George V or VI protocols." But that seemed to go right by Oprah who questioned whether Archie's skin color was part of the reason for his lack of a title. The conversation went on so long I had a hard time keeping up and can't remember all the questions & answers.

Meghan did mention that Archie and her unborn child will become prince/princesses once Charles becomes king. She referred to what she called the "George V or VI protocol." But that went right by Oprah who wanted to know if Archie's skin color played a part.

It would have been instructive to compare the questions & answers if Oprah had thought to question why Meghan and her children, the spouse and children of the next monarch's second child, are/will be HRH Princess/Prince, while the spouse and children of the current monarch's second child are a mere Sir, Mr., and Mrs.


Charles better have a new LP ready to go on his accession to the throne that limits the HRH to the monarch's children and the heir's children but that anyone previously entitled to the HRH (the Kents, Gloucesters, Yorks and Wessexes) will retain their HRH.

If that were to happen it would make the royal family look vindictive.

I am not sure if Alisa's post refers to potential new Letters Patent on Charles' accession, but if so, she has a point, even if new LPs were long planned (and indeed, they are long overdue since the entry into force of the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 in 2015).
 
Last edited:
It would have been instructive to compare the questions & answers if Oprah had thought to question why Meghan and her children, the spouse and children of the next monarch's second child, are/will be HRH Princess/Prince, while the spouse and children of the current monarch's second child are a mere Sir, Mr., and Mrs.


Unfortunately, Oprah did not see fit to consult royal experts before preparing her questions regarding Archie's title (or lack thereof). Meghan mentioned the "George V or VI protocol" and that Archie would become a prince once Charles becomes King, but instead of asking for clarification Oprah ignored it and focused on questioning Meghan whether Archie's skin color was involved in the decision.
 
Unfortunately, Oprah did not see fit to consult royal experts before preparing her questions regarding Archie's title (or lack thereof). Meghan mentioned the "George V or VI protocol" and that Archie would become a prince once Charles becomes King, but instead of asking for clarification Oprah ignored it and focused on questioning Meghan whether Archie's skin color was involved in the decision.



Exactly! Sloppy sloppy work on Oprah’s part
 
It would have been instructive to compare the questions & answers if Oprah had thought to question why Meghan and her children, the spouse and children of the next monarch's second child, are/will be HRH Princess/Prince, while the spouse and children of the current monarch's second child are a mere Sir, Mr., and Mrs.






I am not sure if Alisa's post refers to potential new Letters Patent on Charles' accession, but if so, she has a point, even if new LPs were long planned (and indeed, they are long overdue since the entry into force of the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 in 2015).

Charles would never openly discuss new LPs on his accession while his mother is still alive. He understands the hierarchy and knows that titles of the RF are a matter for the Sovereign to decide, not the heir. Meghan's confusing account of the story is not credible.

In any case, if Charles as king decides to limit the HRH to children of the heir only, he will be just following a trend that already applies to the monarch's grandchildren e,g. in the Netherlands, Spain and, most recently, Sweden. It has nothing to do with Harry, Meghan or Archie personally, or with "race".
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately, Oprah did not see fit to consult royal experts before preparing her questions regarding Archie's title (or lack thereof). Meghan mentioned the "George V or VI protocol" and that Archie would become a prince once Charles becomes King, but instead of asking for clarification Oprah ignored it and focused on questioning Meghan whether Archie's skin color was involved in the decision.

Exactly! Sloppy sloppy work on Oprah’s part

? You think that was "sloppy" on Oprah's part? I'd say it was more likely deliberate. But that's all I'm going to say on the subject since anything else edges dangerously into discussion American politics and that's strictly verboten here (which I appreciate!).
 
Well I haven't watched the interview but I can understand how the precise details and significance of matters as arcane as Letters of Patent escaped Meghan's understanding.

All it really means is the rule was made at a time when life spans were shorter and children often didn't know much about their grandparents because they had died. The sheer number of HM's Great Grandchildren is wonderful but never envisioned and therefore never included. Therefore when the Heir's Heir married his children would not have been prince's or princess's. Thus LP's were drawn up to cover the Duke of Cambridge's children and by the time he was born, he was born a prince.

This nonsense about Anne not wanting it for her children is true but her children were never entitled to it under the rules she grew up with and she had made a name and potential career for herself before her marriage and it wasn't a royal life or career.

Personally I believe Oprah had a racial agenda and didn't want to know "the actual facts". Half a truth is a damnable lie but one she can spin.
 
If the title "Duke of Sussex" will be removed from Harry (but he and his children will remaining in the line of succession) and Prince Charles will be king and there would be a new letters patent that all grandchildren of the king will be HRH and Prince/ss, what will Archies and his future sisters title be?
 
If the title "Duke of Sussex" will be removed from Harry (but he and his children will remaining in the line of succession) and Prince Charles will be king and there would be a new letters patent that all grandchildren of the king will be HRH and Prince/ss, what will Archies and his future sisters title be?


I suppose simply HRH Prince Archie .

Note that what the existing LPs say is that princes have the titular dignity (I am not sure that is the exact term, and don't have time to check it now) of "Prince" and the stye of Royal Highness prefixed to their given names. The LPs do not say anything about territorial designations like "of Cambridge" or "of Sussex", whose use I assume is only a matter of tradition, possibly inspired by the old French custom of children of French royal peers taking the territorial designation of their fathers' peerage as last name.
 
If the title "Duke of Sussex" will be removed from Harry (but he and his children will remaining in the line of succession) and Prince Charles will be king and there would be a new letters patent that all grandchildren of the king will be HRH and Prince/ss, what will Archies and his future sisters title be?

Further to other answers, removal of the Sussex title would also render Archie's parents as being Prince and Princess Henry - "of Wales" I assume until Charles becomes king?
 
All it really means is the rule was made at a time when life spans were shorter and children often didn't know much about their grandparents because they had died. The sheer number of HM's Great Grandchildren is wonderful but never envisioned and therefore never included.

The Letters Patent of 1917 did envision great-grandchildren of monarchs, stipulating that the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales would enjoy the style of HRH Prince while other great-grandchildren in male line would be styled as children of dukes.

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/prince_highness_docs.htm#1917_2


Whitehall, 11th December, 1917.
[...] It is declared by the Letters Patent that [...] the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names or with their other titles of honour; [...] and that the grandchildren of the sons of any such Sovereign in the direct male line (save only the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales) shall have the style and title enjoyed by the children of Dukes.​


In any case, if Charles as king decides to limit the HRH to children of the heir only, he will be just following a trend that already applies to the monarch's grandchildren e,g. in the Netherlands, Spain and, most recently, Sweden. It has nothing to do with Harry, Meghan or Archie personally, or with "race".

Of course, but given that Archie and his sister would be the only individuals who would immediately be affected (unless the King chooses to strip existing HRHs), it would leave King Charles vulnerable to accusations by those who ignore the general nature of the Letters Patent.
 
Unless they amend the act of succession, through an act of Parliament, then actually Archie and his sister will both automatically become HRHs when Charles ascends the throne. Again something Harry absolutely knew. Now there might be some talk of trying to get an amendment but it hasn't happened. So as of now, Yes, Archie will be a Prince.

This is of course assuming nothing else happens like the Sussexes are stripped of their titles, which again takes an act of Parliament, and are removed from the succession.

Unlike peerages, HRH and Prince/ss titles have always been regulated by the Sovereign without interference from Parliament.

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/prince_highness.htm

Not all members of the line of succession are HRHs; Archie is already placed in the line of succession.

https://www.royal.uk/succession


When the Letter Patent was issued 1917, there was no specific year, meaning it applied retrospectively. For example, His Highness Prince Alastair of Connaught lost HH Prince in 1917 (1914-1943). Other great-grandchildren of George III and Queen Victoria also lost their HH Prince (of United Kingdom) title.

The Letters Patent of 1917 actually included a saving clause which preserved titles previously created through Letters Patent. In this way, female-line granddaughters such as HH Princess Helena Victoria (a granddaughter of Queen Victoria) and HH Princess Maud (a granddaughter of King Edward VII) were able to remain HH Princess after 1917, in spite of being ineligible for HH/HRH or Princess under the 1917 LPs.

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/prince_highness_docs.htm#1917_2


[...] save as aforesaid the style title or attribute of Royal Highness Highness or Serene Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess shall not henceforth be assumed or borne by any descendent of any Sovereign of these Realms excepting always any such descendant who at the date of these Letters Patent holds or bears any right to any such style degree attribute or titular dignity in pursuance of any Letters Patent granted by Ourselves or any of Our Royal Predecessors and still remaining unrevoked


Alastair, on the other hand, ceased to be known as HH Prince because, while called a prince by custom, he did not bear that attribute in pursuance of any Letters Patent. As a matter of fact, his own grandmother was uncertain whether he was a prince.

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/prince_highness.htm#Connaught


Sometime in late 1916, the duchess of Connaught asked the Earl Curzon to look into the style of her grandson, the infant Alastair. Curzon contacted the Lord Chancellor discreetly, avoiding Buckingham Palace (he wrote that "The King is indifferent [?] rather hostile, having always been rather jealous of the Connaughts"). The Lord Chancellor replied on Jan 11, 1917 that "it would be in accordance with usage that the son of Prince Arthur of Connaught should be styled 'Prince' and 'Highness'" but cautioned that no step should be taken without consulting the king.​
 
Last edited:
Further to other answers, removal of the Sussex title would also render Archie's parents as being Prince and Princess Henry - "of Wales" I assume until Charles becomes king?

Yes when they would become TRH The Prince and Princess Henry ... no 'of' anything.
 
Actually, it has been reported several times that the Queen was prepared to make Peter and Zara HRH and even Prince/ss of Great Britian and it was Princess Anne and her first husband who declined. There were reports she offered her oldest grandson an earldom on his wedding day and he refused.

Sounds like HM The Queen wanted equity amongst her children.

Again, you miss my point completely. The Queen was prepared to issue letters patent that the children of the Princess Royal had HRH and titles, just like her father did with her. Under the 1917 patent, NONE of the Queen's children would have titles when she was the Duchess of Edinburgh, Princess Elizabeth. The Princess Royal REFUSED and her mother respected her decision.

Everyone here can hold on to the 1917 letters patent with dear life, but there has been already a handful of new patents issued since then. The latest in 2013.
Can you share the reports claiming this? How would the HRH for Peter and Zara be achieved? Would their father be made a royal highness himself? And where the claims about giving Peter an earldom comparable to be Eugenie's husband being made an earl; i.e., baseless rumors? I don't think any of those are trustworthy.

What was offered and refused (at least that is the consensus among reputable sources) is an earldom for Mark Philips which would have made Peter Viscount X and Zara Lady Zara - like Margaret's children. So, it wasn't about LPs and there wasn't a reason for LPs either - Anne's situation is completely different from her mother's as Elizabeth's children included the future monarch and Anne's children didn't as she had 3 brother who most likely would have children of their own which would all be ahead of her children in the line of succession.

And if she valued equality so much, why did she agree that Louise and James are known as children of an earl instead of as royal highnesses?
 
Last edited:
Can you share the reports claiming this? How would the HRH for Peter and Zara be achieved? Would their father be made a royal highness himself? And where the claims about giving Peter an earldom comparable to be Eugenie's husband being made an earl; i.e., baseless rumors? I don't think any of those are trustworthy.

What was likely offered is an earldom for Mark Philips which would have made Peter Viscount X and Zara Lady Zara - like Margaret's children.

And if she valued equality so much, why did she agree that Louise and James are known as children of an earl instead of as royal highnesses?

this is all nonsense. The queen would never have suggested HRH for the children of her daughter and Anne and Mark P seem to have rejected any offers of an earldom for him.
 
The only one I've ever heard is that she offered Mark Philips and Earldom and he and Anne refused.

I've never heard that Peter Philips was offered anything or Mike Tindall either for that matter. Peter and Zara have talked more than once about how grateful they are to their parents for that but no comments about turning anything down themselves.

However, even if the Queen had offered to make them HRH from the female line they were grandchildren of a monarch, not great grandchildren. And since it didn't happen and James and Louise aren't HRH I don't think anyone can argue that equity among the cousins or second cousins is at the top of anyone else's list of things to worry about. Even Edo doesn't go around using Conte even though his father does.

In the UK when you're HRH Prince/ss you're automatically "of Great Britain" though often known by another territorial designation like "Kent" "Gloucester" "York" etc.

Unlike other European houses there's no way to be "just" HRH Princess Eugenie Mountbatten-Windsor but not "of GB" unlike say Luxembourg.
 
Last edited:
However, even if the Queen had offered to make them HRH from the female line they were grandchildren of a monarch, not great grandchildren. And since it didn't happen and James and Louise aren't HRH [...]
.


There is some controversy about that. The Countess of Wessex seems to have said that James and Louise can still decide whether to use the HRH or not when they are of age.
 
There is some controversy about that. The Countess of Wessex seems to have said that James and Louise can still decide whether to use the HRH or not when they are of age.

Yes I know. I was part of the latest discussion a couple of months ago. It does seem like they have a choice when they get to 18 but I can't imagine either of them taking it up.

However whilst I would definitely expect Sophie to know what's correct or not as it relates to her children, Harry's apparent complete lack of knowledge about how LPs, titles and other protocols in his family work kind of throws more of a question mark on to that.

Regardless they don't currently use them and it was announced before they were even born.
 
Can you share the reports claiming this? [...]

CrownPrincessJava already replied to this question in the other thread, so I will copy her reply here.

Anne was neither antiquated nor rigid in her own child-rearing. Keen for Peter and Zara to have ordinary childhoods, she broke with royal tradition by choosing not to give them HRH titles when they were born, a peerage she would have been offered from the queen. “I think it was probably easier for them, and I think most people would argue that there are downsides to having titles,” she says. “So I think that was probably the right thing to do.” (Our interview happened to take place a month after Harry and Meghan announced they would be giving up their HRH titles.)

From https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2020/04/princess-anne-opens-up-about-her-lifetime-as-a-royal

Princess Anne was reportedly offered the chance to give her children a title, but she refused (as did her husband, Captain Mark Phillips, who had been offered a title on their marriage).

From https://www.tatler.com/article/geor...y-are-princes-and-princesses-and-some-are-not

There is an article I'm trying to find that after Zara's birth, the Queen offered to give Anne's children HRH Prince/ss titles

I will also copy my response:

Thank you! I remember the Vanity Fair article, but its incorrect suggestion that an HRH title is a peerage does not provide a basis to infer whether it was an HRH title or merely a peerage which was offered from the queen. (For newer readers, a peerage is a title of duke, marquess, earl, viscount, or baron/lord.)

The actual quotation from the Princess Royal states only "titles" and is not precise about whether the titles were royal titles or peerage titles.

The Tatler article also does not precise whether the titles offered to Princess Anne's husband and children were HRH titles, or titles from the peerage.


At the time Princess Anne gave birth to her first child, the media coverage suggested that the titles she was offered for her husband and children were merely peerage titles, rather than HRH Prince/ss titles.

https://www.nytimes.com/1977/11/16/...irth-to-boy-fifth-in-line-to-the-british.html


In a departure from tradition, the child will not be given a title. [...] No reason was given but it was speculated that the young parents, both of whom are known as freewheeling and independent, did not want peerages for themselves or their children.​


BBC ON THIS DAY | 15 | 1977: Princess Anne gives birth to Master Phillips


Both the princess and her husband are said to have rejected an offer from the Queen of titles which would have enabled their children to be born into the peerage.​
 
Just found this answer.

Anne was neither antiquated nor rigid in her own child-rearing. Keen for Peter and Zara to have ordinary childhoods, she broke with royal tradition by choosing not to give them HRH titles when they were born, a peerage she would have been offered from the queen. “I think it was probably easier for them, and I think most people would argue that there are downsides to having titles,” she says. “So I think that was probably the right thing to do.” (Our interview happened to take place a month after Harry and Meghan announced they would be giving up their HRH titles.)

From https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2020/04/princess-anne-opens-up-about-her-lifetime-as-a-royal
Vanity Fair is mistaken I'm afraid. The quote from Anne doesn't reference HRH titles either but just talks about titles in general, so that would include an earldom and the courtesy titles for their children that would have derived from them.

Princess Anne was reportedly offered the chance to give her children a title, but she refused (as did her husband, Captain Mark Phillips, who had been offered a title on their marriage).

From https://www.tatler.com/article/geor...y-are-princes-and-princesses-and-some-are-not
Tatler presents it as if these are two separate instances but they are not. Her husband was offered a title (earldom). As titles derive from the father, that would have been the way for their children to have courtesy titles as well. Any title that Anne might or might not hold would be irrelevant in terms of her children's titles (as is evidenced by them not being titled while her mother is HRH The Princess Royal).

There is an article I'm trying to find that after Zara's birth, the Queen offered to give Anne's children HRH Prince/ss titles
After Zara's birth? So, when Anne and Mark already had been married for almost a decade and had had a son for several years? That is a rather strange claim.

N.B. Had to pause while writing up this response, so posted it a little later than planned and therefore, some overlap can be found between this post and Tatiana Maria's (thanks TM!).
 
Last edited:
Tatler presents it as if these are two separate instances but they are not. Her husband was offered a title (earldom). As titles derive from the father, that would have been the way for their children to have courtesy titles as well. Any title that Anne might or might not hold would be irrelevant in terms of her children's titles (as is evidenced by them not being titled while her mother is HRH The Princess Royal).

You are right that most British courtesy titles derive from the father, however, British courtesy titles do derive from the mother when she is a peeress or the reigning Queen. Had Anne been offered and accepted an earldom, her children would have had the same courtesy titles as if their father had been an earl. However, her husband would not derive a title from her.
 
You are right that most British courtesy titles derive from the father, however, British courtesy titles do derive from the mother when she is a peeress or the reigning Queen. Had Anne been offered and accepted an earldom, her children would have had the same courtesy titles as if their father had been an earl. However, her husband would not derive a title from her.
Thanks for that clarification. So, in short, children of PEERS do get courtesy titles; independent of which parent. Would that only apply to hereditary peers or also to life peers?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom