Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Mbruno]

Official announcements from BP usually just refer to him as Viscount Severn but the media often include his first name in the same way they use Kate, Duchess of Cambridge.

Also he's often referred to in the same sentence as Lady Louise so I think they just even up the use of first names.

Lady Louise is referred to as The Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor on royal.uk but usually only as "Windsor" without Mountbatten (unlike Archie who always has M-W) in the media so they don't check a lot of things.

Which is wrong since the Queen's declaration to the Privy Council of February 8, 1960 makes it clear that, unless Lady Louise uses her (rightful) style of Princesses, her family name is Mountbatten-Windsor.

 

[Denville]

Which is wrong since the Queen's declaration to the Privy Council of February 8, 1960 makes it clear that, unless Lady Louise uses her (rightful) style of Princesses, her family name is Mountbatten-Windsor.

I believe that at school she's known as Louise Windsor, People with double barrelled names dont always use the full version.

 

[LauraS3514]

Since Prince Andrew has no sons, (assuming he does not have any going forward) his dukedom will revert to the crown when he passes away. If he has the longevity of his parents, that could be many decades from now.

After it reverts, the monarch (Charles or William, most likely) is then free to bestow it on Louis or another male royal.

Though the Dukedom has a history of being bestowed on brothers of future Kings, there is no rule giving Louis a right to the York Dukedom or any other. If Andrew is still alive when the Monarch wants to give Louis a Dukedom, another will be given instead. Or if Louis does not want a Dukedom, it will remain with the Crown.

(There are only two Dukedoms that are set aside permanently: Duchy of Cornwall for the heir to the throne, and the Duchy of Lancaster for the Monarch. Everything else is up to the Monarch once it has reverted back to the Crown.)

Couple of thoughts:



In order to keep "Duke of York" in the Royal Family maybe it should in the (distant) future be reserved for the heir-to-the-heir. George V was Duke of York before he became POW. It would be nice for it to not pass out of the family forever the way Kent and Gloucester are slated to do.


Also, there is one more "reserved" Dukedom: Duke of Rothsay - the title of the oldest son in Scotland.

 

[Archduchess Zelia]

Agreed. As a matter of fact, in my opinion it would be an ideal solution for all the royal dukedoms. Let the dukedoms be given for life (similar to what they do in Sweden) but make the subsidiary titles hereditary. So, say, when he ascends the throne, Charles bestows the Dukedom of Edinburgh on Edward but Edward would then only be able to pass on the Earldom of Wessex (and Forfar) and Viscountcy of Severn thereby "retaining" the Dukedom of Edinburgh.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Agreed. As a matter of fact, in my opinion it would be an ideal solution for all the royal dukedoms. Let the dukedoms be given for life (similar to what they do in Sweden) but make the subsidiary titles hereditary. So, say, when he ascends the throne, Charles bestows the Dukedom of Edinburgh on Edward but Edward would then only be able to pass on the Earldom of Wessex (and Forfar) and Viscountcy of Severn thereby "retaining" the Dukedom of Edinburgh.

I fail to see why Dukedoms can not be hereditary but Earldoms etc. can?

 

[Archduchess Zelia]

To avoid potentially "losing" historical dukedoms such as York or Clarence like they will Gloucester and Kent.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Clarence is available.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

To avoid potentially "losing" historical dukedoms such as York or Clarence like they will Gloucester and Kent.

They will never be "lost" because in the end, without successors, all titles revert to the Crown.

The former royal dukedoms of Albany, Albemarle, Avondale, Clarence, Connaught, Cumberland, Hereford, Kendal, Kindyre, Lorne, Ross, St Andrews, Strathearn, Teviotdale and Windsor are all available.

The former royal dukedoms of Bedford, Norfolk and Somerset were re-used to create "normal" Dukes and all three current non-royal Dukes belong to the most prestigious peers of the Realm.

I like it that under a future King George VII there will be a 4th Duke of Gloucester (the current Lord Culloden) whom is equally a descendant of King George V and Queen Mary.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Connaught is not available. Connaught is in the Republic of Ireland and so not available. The monarch of the UK can't create a title using a place that is not in the UK. Yes there are peers in the UK now still with titles with place names in the republic but when they go extinct those titles also won't be recreated.

An example - George VI as Duke of York as Duke of York, Earl of Inverness but Baron Killarney but when Prince Andrew was created Duke of York he was also created Earl of Inverness but Baron Killyleagh - in Northern Ireland and not the republic.

Albany, Cumberland and Teviotdale aren't available as their heirs can still ask the Privy Council for them to be returned - even though it has been over 100 years there was no cut off date. As long as there are male heirs those titles are off the table.

St Andrews and Strathearn are now Earldoms.

Windsor will only be used for some disgraced royal and not otherwise.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Albany [...] aren't available as their heirs can still ask the Privy Council for them to be returned - even though it has been over 100 years there was no cut off date. As long as there are male heirs those titles are off the table.

Who are the male heirs to Albany? Illegitimate male descendants and their descendants cannot be heirs to the dukedom.

By the Royal Marriages Act of 1772, when a descendant of King George II (other than the issue of princesses married into foreign families) contracted marriage without the consent of the monarch, the marriage was null and void, and consequently the couple's children were illegitimate.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/apgb/Geo3/12/11/contents

For example, the Royal Marriages Act was followed when Prince Augustus Frederick, Duke of Sussex, married in breach of it. His marriage was declared null and void, and the couple's son Augustus Frederick d'Este was, as an illegitimate child, unable to inherit the dukedom of Sussex.


Per the author of Queen Victoria's Descendants, no descendant of the second Duke of Albany, Charles Edward, ever sought approval from the British monarch before marrying.

Therefore, so long as the Royal Marriages Act was maintained, the grandchildren of Charles Edward, and their heirs, were illegitimate in the United Kingdom and excluded from the line of succession to the dukedom of Albany.


The Succession to the Crown Act of 2013 did legitimize marriages which were null and void under the Royal Marriages Act, but only if "in all the circumstances it was reasonable for the person concerned not to have been aware at the time of the marriage that the Act applied to it", per section 3, subsection 5 (a).

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/20

If it was not reasonable for Duke Charles Edward's descendants to have been unaware that the Royal Marriages Act applied to them, then his heirs are still illegitimate in the United Kingdom and there are no heirs to the dukedom of Albany.

Connaught is not available. Connaught is in the Republic of Ireland and so not available. The monarch of the UK can't create a title using a place that is not in the UK. Yes there are peers in the UK now still with titles with place names in the republic but when they go extinct those titles also won't be recreated.

There is no legal barrier as far as I know. It is only that it would be toxic from a political point of view.

Clarence is available.

Yes, and the original poster was stating that she would like to keep it available for the royal family rather than losing it to for example Prince Louis's male heirs for the foreseeable future.

They will never be "lost" because in the end, without successors, all titles revert to the Crown.

York is the only royal dukedom without a successor, and that is owed to chance. At the time that dukedoms are bestowed there is every reason to expect that there will be successors, especially in this traditional family in which marriage and childbearing are expected.

 

[Stefan]

To avoid potentially "losing" historical dukedoms such as York or Clarence l.

They haven't used Clarence since almost 130 years so there is no danger for it to get lost.

 

[Mbruno]

Agreed. As a matter of fact, in my opinion it would be an ideal solution for all the royal dukedoms. Let the dukedoms be given for life (similar to what they do in Sweden) but make the subsidiary titles hereditary. So, say, when he ascends the throne, Charles bestows the Dukedom of Edinburgh on Edward but Edward would then only be able to pass on the Earldom of Wessex (and Forfar) and Viscountcy of Severn thereby "retaining" the Dukedom of Edinburgh.

The problem is that British law, I think, limits life peerages to the rank of baron only. Furthermore, life peerages also entitle the holder to a seat in the House of Lords (provided that he or she is a British citizen).


My understanding then is that an act of Parliament would be needed to allow the creation in the future of life dukedoms.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The problem is that British law, I think, limits life peerages to the rank of baron only. Furthermore, life peerages also entitle the holder to a seat in the House of Lords (provided that he or she is a British citizen).

My understanding then is that an act of Parliament would be needed to allow the creation in the future of life dukedoms.

My understanding is that the Life Peerages Act 1958 was passed to empower the government to have the monarch appoint life peers to Parliament, not to eliminate the crown's prerogative to create other non-hereditary peerages. As life peerages under the Life Peerages Act 1958 automatically have the rank of baron, the creation of a non-hereditary dukedom would be deemed not to have been a creation under that Act. As a result, the duke would not be entitled to a seat in the House of Lords. But that would not prevent the monarch from creating a non-hereditary dukedom outside of that Act.

Life Peerages Act 1958
1958 CHAPTER 21 6 and 7 Eliz 2

An Act to make provision for the creation of life peerages carrying the right to sit and vote in the House of Lords.

[30th April 1958]
1 Power to create life peerages carrying right to sit in the House of Lords.

(1)F1... Her Majesty shall have power by letters patent to confer on any person a peerage for life having the incidents specified in subsection (2) of this section.

(2)A peerage conferred under this section shall, during the life of the person on whom it is conferred, entitle him—

(a)to rank as a baron under such style as may be appointed by the letters patent; and

(b)subject to subsection (4) of this section, to receive writs of summons to attend the House of Lords and sit and vote therein accordingly,

and shall expire on his death.

(3)A life peerage may be conferred under this section on a woman.

(4)Nothing in this section shall enable any person to receive a writ of summons to attend the House of Lords, or to sit and vote in that House, at any time when disqualified therefor by law.

They haven't used Clarence since almost 130 years so there is no danger for it to get lost.

But it will probably be the next dukedom to be used. It and Windsor are the only former royal dukedoms which have a history of active use by British royals, are indisputably available (as explained above, Albany is likely available, but there is a smidgen of doubt) and do not use a territorial designation outside the present borders of the UK (which excludes Connaught).

 

[JR76]

Who are the male heirs to Albany? Illegitimate male descendants and their descendants cannot be heirs to the dukedom.

By the Royal Marriages Act of 1772, when a descendant of King George II (other than the issue of princesses married into foreign families) contracted marriage without the consent of the monarch, the marriage was null and void, and consequently the couple's children were illegitimate.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/apgb/Geo3/12/11/contents

For example, the Royal Marriages Act was followed when Prince Augustus Frederick, Duke of Sussex, married in breach of it. His marriage was declared null and void, and the couple's son Augustus Frederick d'Este was, as an illegitimate child, unable to inherit the dukedom of Sussex.


Per the author of Queen Victoria's Descendants, no descendant of the second Duke of Albany, Charles Edward, ever sought approval from the British monarch before marrying.

Therefore, so long as the Royal Marriages Act was maintained, the grandchildren of Charles Edward, and their heirs, were illegitimate in the United Kingdom and excluded from the line of succession to the dukedom of Albany.


The Succession to the Crown Act of 2013 did legitimize marriages which were null and void under the Royal Marriages Act, but only if "in all the circumstances it was reasonable for the person concerned not to have been aware at the time of the marriage that the Act applied to it", per section 3, subsection 5 (a).

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/20

If it was not reasonable for Duke Charles Edward's descendants to have been unaware that the Royal Marriages Act applied to them, then his heirs are still illegitimate in the United Kingdom and there are no heirs to the dukedom of Albany.





There is no legal barrier as far as I know. It is only that it would be toxic from a political point of view.




Yes, and the original poster was stating that she would like to keep it available for the royal family rather than losing it to for example Prince Louis's male heirs for the foreseeable future.




York is the only royal dukedom without a successor, and that is owed to chance. At the time that dukedoms are bestowed there is every reason to expect that there will be successors, especially in this traditional family in which marriage and childbearing are expected.

I wonder if since the Duke of Albany and his children weren't considered members of the British Royal family after WWI and his children were descended from a granddaughter of George II that had married into a foreign royal family they might not have felt that the stipulations of the act required them to require permission to marry?
It's also possible that Karl Edvard felt that he didn't care about his British peerages and legal obligations after what had happened.
What's interesting to me is how being illegitimate would affect the Duke's descendants that do live in the UK especially considering that they hold the baronetcy of Huntington-Whiteley of Grimley.

 

[Mbruno]

My understanding is that the Life Peerages Act 1958 was passed to empower the government to have the monarch appoint life peers to Parliament, not to eliminate the crown's prerogative to create other non-hereditary peerages. As life peerages under the Life Peerages Act 1958 automatically have the rank of baron, the creation of a non-hereditary dukedom would be deemed not to have been a creation under that Act. As a result, the duke would not be entitled to a seat in the House of Lords. But that would not prevent the monarch from creating a non-hereditary dukedom outside of that Act.

Yes, that is a possible interpretation.

 

[Stefan]

But it will probably be the next dukedom to be used. It and Windsor are the only former royal dukedoms which have a history of active use by British royals, are indisputably available (as explained above, Albany is likely available, but there is a smidgen of doubt) and do not use a territorial designation outside the present borders of the UK (which excludes Connaught).

The next Dukedom will most likely by Edinburgh when it will be bestowed on Prince Edward. And the next after this i think Cambridge could be available again then it could be that King William prefers to give his one former Duchy to one of his children.

 

[Saz83]

The next Dukedom will most likely by Edinburgh when it will be bestowed on Prince Edward. And the next after this i think Cambridge could be available again then it could be that King William prefers to give his one former Duchy to one of his children.

I like the possibility that when William becomes King if he gave the dukedom of Cambridge to George's heir and then Cambridge could kind of become the title associated with the heir to the heir. It would then always stay within the royal family as it would always merge with the crown ready to be passed to the next heir to the heir.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I wonder if since the Duke of Albany and his children weren't considered members of the British Royal family after WWI and his children were descended from a granddaughter of George II that had married into a foreign royal family they might not have felt that the stipulations of the act required them to require permission to marry?
It's also possible that Karl Edvard felt that he didn't care about his British peerages and legal obligations after what had happened.
What's interesting to me is how being illegitimate would affect the Duke's descendants that do live in the UK especially considering that they hold the baronetcy of Huntington-Whiteley of Grimley.

It wouldn't (and didn't in 2019) affect their rights to the baronetcy. The only lineage in which legitimacy would be at stake as far as the baronetcy is concerned would be the lineage from the baronetcy's original grantee. Having a female ancestor of illegitimate birth will not affect the succession to a peerage or baronetcy that passes in the male line.

There has even been a case in the royal family. Maria, Duchess of Gloucester (1739-1807) was the illegitimate daughter of a British peer. Nonetheless, her son with the Duke of Gloucester inherited his father's peerages.

 

[Stefan]

I like the possibility that when William becomes King if he gave the dukedom of Cambridge to George's heir and then Cambridge could kind of become the title associated with the heir to the heir. It would then always stay within the royal family as it would always merge with the crown ready to be passed to the next heir to the heir.

My thought was he will give it to either Louis or Charlotte

 

[Saz83]

My thought was he will give it to either Louis or Charlotte

I think that Charlotte will eventually be given the Princess Royal title and depending on if Andrew is still around when Louis gets married he may get the Duke of York title. But it would also be a nice nod to their father if either Louis or Charlotte were eventually passed the Cambridge title.

 

[JR76]

It wouldn't (and didn't in 2019) affect their rights to the baronetcy. The only lineage in which legitimacy would be at stake as far as the baronetcy is concerned would be the lineage from the baronetcy's original grantee. Having a female ancestor of illegitimate birth will not affect the succession to a peerage or baronetcy that passes in the male line.

But if it's the case that Victoria Huntington-Whiteley is deemed illegitimate because her parents, Calma of Sachsen-Coburg-Gotha & Friedrich Wilhelm of Castell-Rüdhausen, didn't request permission to marry according to the provisions of the RMA doesn't that imply that she in her turn would have been required to request the same permission to marry? If she didn't her son would be illegitimate and would not have been line to inherit his father's title. Or am I understanding this wrong?

 

[Mbruno]

My thought was he will give it to either Louis or Charlotte

I think Charlotte will be the next Princess Royal. I don't see her getting a peerage.

 

[Denville]

But if it's the case that Victoria Huntington-Whiteley is deemed illegitimate because her parents, Calma of Sachsen-Coburg-Gotha & Friedrich Wilhelm of Castell-Rüdhausen, didn't request permission to marry according to the provisions of the RMA doesn't that imply that she in her turn would have been required to request the same permission to marry? If she didn't her son would be illegitimate and would not have been line to inherit his father's title. Or am I understanding this wrong?

the legitimate ones have to be the male line (Unless its a title that can descend in teh female line. If the Duke of Gloucester married a woman whose parents weren't married, THEIR son would be Ok to inherit, because the Duke was legitimate. His mother being illegitimate would not affect his succession to his fahter's titles.

 

[Denville]

I think Charlotte will be the next Princess Royal. I don't see her getting a peerage.

Its hard to say. It might happen in hte interests of makng male and female royals more equal.. however, OTOH, the trend is for less titles, less HRHS etc.. so - mabye not. But in that case, if Charlotte does nt get a peerage when she marries, mabye Louis wont get one either. That only the heir and the heir's heir will get titles.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Illegitimacy only affects the succession to a British title if it represents a break in the lineage tracing back to the parent or ancestor by whom one claims the title.

Victoria's son Leopold Huntington-Whiteley inherited his title from his father Sir Miles Huntington-Whiteley. To prove his claim to his title, he would have been required to prove that he was a legitimate son of Sir Miles. Refer to the guidance from the College of Arms:

11. For the succession of a son by the first or only marriage of the late peer
a) the full birth certificate of the claimant;
b) the marriage certificate of the claimant’s parents;
c) the death certificate of the late peer; and
d) evidence showing that the late Peer had no legitimate surviving male issue before the birth of the claimant.​

A generation ago, when Miles Huntington-Whiteley claimed his title, he too would have been required to prove that he was a legitimate son of his father. His own father before him would have been required to prove that he was a legitimate son of his father, and so on.

It is of no importance to the baronetcy if Victoria, Lady Huntington-Whiteley is an illegitimate child. (Just as it was irrelevant that the mother of Prince William Frederick of Gloucester was an illegitimate child, and it was no barrier to the prince's succession as Duke of Gloucester.) Lady Huntington-Whiteley is only a consort. She is not in the line of succession to the Huntington-Whiteley baronetcy, and her parentage and ancestry does not affect its order of succession.

Victoria's illegitimacy would, however, affect her son Leopold's right to succeed to any British title which Leopold claimed through her, his mother (such as the title to the British crown).

the legitimate ones have to be the male line (Unless its a title that can descend in teh female line. If the Duke of Gloucester married a woman whose parents weren't married, THEIR son would be Ok to inherit, because the Duke was legitimate. His mother being illegitimate would not affect his succession to his fahter's titles.

Thank you, Denville. You put it much more succinctly than I did.

Aren't the current members of the royal family descended from illegitimate children of earlier kings? That would be another example of illegitimacy in other ancestral lines not affecting the succession so long as the line through which the title (crown) descended to the heirs is always legitimate.

 

[Somebody]

I like the possibility that when William becomes King if he gave the dukedom of Cambridge to George's heir and then Cambridge could kind of become the title associated with the heir to the heir. It would then always stay within the royal family as it would always merge with the crown ready to be passed to the next heir to the heir.

I was thinking that he might want to give it to Louis; a bit like how Philip liked one of his sons to have the Duke of Edinburgh title; so it would stay with his descendants (which of course requires that James will have sons).

 

[Tatiana Maria]

But if it's the case that Victoria Huntington-Whiteley is deemed illegitimate because her parents, Calma of Sachsen-Coburg-Gotha & Friedrich Wilhelm of Castell-Rüdhausen, didn't request permission to marry according to the provisions of the RMA doesn't that imply that she in her turn would have been required to request the same permission to marry? If she didn't her son would be illegitimate and would not have been line to inherit his father's title. Or am I understanding this wrong?

I forgot to respond to JR76's question on whether illegitimate children were required to request permission for their own marriages, according to the Royal Marriages Act.

In earlier centuries, the Royal Marriages Act was not deemed to apply to illegitimate descendants. For example, King William IV bestowed the Earldom of Munster on his illegitimate son, George FitzClarence. Later, George was succeeded as Earl by his eldest son. We can infer that the Royal Marriages Act did not apply to George, because if George's marriage had been deemed void according to the RMA, George's son would have been deemed illegitimate and prevented from succeeding George as Earl.

At that time, illegitimate children were not legally acknowledged as the offspring of their birth parents. I am not sure whether the changes in the laws of legitimacy which had come to pass by the time Victoria married Miles affected the interpretation of the Royal Marriages Act.

If Victoria's own marriage to Sir Miles required permission (but my guess is that it did not), their marriage would have been null and void and their son Leopold would have been deemed illegitimate in the UK. Accordingly, Leopold would not have been in line to the baronetcy at birth.

However, he would probably have been in line to the baronetcy after 2015 (he inherited it in 2019), when the Succession to the Crown Act retroactively legitimated most of the descendants who were rendered illegitimate by the Royal Marriages Act. As stated in the law, it would require that "in all the circumstances it was reasonable for the person concerned not to have been aware at the time of the marriage that the Act applied to it". But Victoria and Miles would certainly meet that requirement, given that the Royal Marriages Act historically did not apply to illegitimate children like Victoria.

 

[Mbruno]

.

Victoria's son Leopold Huntington-Whiteley inherited his title from his father Sir Miles Huntington-Whiteley. To prove his claim to his title, he would have been required to prove that he was a legitimate son of Sir Miles. Refer to the guidance from the College of Arms:

11. For the succession of a son by the first or only marriage of the late peer
a) the full birth certificate of the claimant;
b) the marriage certificate of the claimant’s parents;
c) the death certificate of the late peer; and
d) evidence showing that the late Peer had no legitimate surviving male issue before the birth of the claimant.​

What if the mother was required to ask for permission to marry, but did not? Would the marriage certificate of the claimant's parents (item b of the list) be considered valid in that case ?

I believe that is what JR76 asked.


EDIT: Sorry, I noticed now you have already answered the question above.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

At the beginning I misread JR76's question and thought he was asking about both Victoria, Lady Huntington-Whiteley and Sir Leopold Huntington-Whiteley's potential illegitimacy (and forgot to respond to the latter), but I see now he was asking only about Leopold. My apologies for the misunderstanding. Post #2393903 is therefore the correct reply, though I will leave the comment about Victoria where it is.

My understanding is that the Life Peerages Act 1958 was passed to empower the government to have the monarch appoint life peers to Parliament, not to eliminate the crown's prerogative to create other non-hereditary peerages. As life peerages under the Life Peerages Act 1958 automatically have the rank of baron, the creation of a non-hereditary dukedom would be deemed not to have been a creation under that Act. As a result, the duke would not be entitled to a seat in the House of Lords. But that would not prevent the monarch from creating a non-hereditary dukedom outside of that Act.

Life Peerages Act 1958
1958 CHAPTER 21 6 and 7 Eliz 2

An Act to make provision for the creation of life peerages carrying the right to sit and vote in the House of Lords.

[30th April 1958]
1 Power to create life peerages carrying right to sit in the House of Lords.

(1)F1... Her Majesty shall have power by letters patent to confer on any person a peerage for life having the incidents specified in subsection (2) of this section.

(2)A peerage conferred under this section shall, during the life of the person on whom it is conferred, entitle him—

(a)to rank as a baron under such style as may be appointed by the letters patent; and

(b)subject to subsection (4) of this section, to receive writs of summons to attend the House of Lords and sit and vote therein accordingly,

and shall expire on his death.

(3)A life peerage may be conferred under this section on a woman.

(4)Nothing in this section shall enable any person to receive a writ of summons to attend the House of Lords, or to sit and vote in that House, at any time when disqualified therefor by law.

One potential correction: I have read somewhere, albeit I cannot locate the source offhand, that it would be possible to create a peerage under the Life Peerages Act using a style other than Baron, and that section (2)(a) simply means that the duke (or whatever style he uses) would only hold the rank of a baron.

 

[JR76]

I forgot to respond to JR76's question on whether illegitimate children were required to request permission for their own marriages, according to the Royal Marriages Act.

Thank you for taking the trouble to post such an extensive reply. It answered quite a lot of things I've been wondering about in relation to the RMA.
Also thanks to Denville. Unfortunately the thank you button isn't a feature on the Android app.