The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #5281  
Old 08-16-2020, 11:56 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
He could use Lord Kilkeel instead as his courtesy title if he wanted to, but it is not terribly flattering either (think Archie Kilkeel or Archie Dumbarton).


Of course, if he became an HRH, he could be simply Archie Sussex in a British school and that would actually sound nice, I think.
Its MOST usual to use the second title.. for the heir.. but I DO think that they really didn't think it through very well, with giving Harry the Dumbarton title. I'm sure it would have provoked jokes in the press and maybe at school for his son...I cant see anything wrong with Kilkeel but if he used it, I think the press would cotton onto the fact that it was because Dumbarton sounded like Dumb or Dumbo...
However I would say he's probalby not going to be an HRH wen Charles becomes king because the Sussexes are clealry moving away from the BRF
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #5282  
Old 08-16-2020, 11:58 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
Its MOST usual to use the second title.. for the heir.. but I DO think that they really didn't think it through very well, with giving Harry the Dumbarton title. I'm sure it would have provoked jokes in the press and maybe at school for his son...I cant see anything wrong with Kilkeel but if he used it, I think the press would cotton onto the fact that it was because Dumbarton sounded like Dumb or Dumbo...
However I would say he's probalby not going to be an HRH wen Charles becomes king because the Sussexes are clealry moving away from the BRF
And Kilkeel is an Irish title & that can be problematic for obvious reasons.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #5283  
Old 08-16-2020, 12:04 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
And Kilkeel is an Irish title & that can be problematic for obvious reasons.
Northern Irish, and all British royal dukes (as far as I know) have a Scottish title, and a N Irish title as well as an English one. He coudl use it if he wanted to, but teh most usual set up is for the heir to use the second title.. ie the earldom.. and if Harry has a grandson, he could be known later on as Baron Kilkeel..
Reply With Quote
  #5284  
Old 08-16-2020, 12:13 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
Northern Irish, and all British royal dukes (as far as I know) have a Scottish title, and a N Irish title as well as an English one. He coudl use it if he wanted to, but teh most usual set up is for the heir to use the second title.. ie the earldom.. and if Harry has a grandson, he could be known later on as Baron Kilkeel..
Well yes Northern Irish of course.

Yes British royal dukes do as you say but we all know how sensitive these things can be & always have been. The fact that there will never be a Northern Irish royal dukedom is symbolic of that surely.
Reply With Quote
  #5285  
Old 08-16-2020, 01:05 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
Northern Irish, and all British royal dukes (as far as I know) have a Scottish title, and a N Irish title as well as an English one. He coudl use it if he wanted to, but teh most usual set up is for the heir to use the second title.. ie the earldom.. and if Harry has a grandson, he could be known later on as Baron Kilkeel..
It is indeed most common but there is an exception: the Duke of Edinburgh doesn't have a Northern Irish subsidiary title and the expected next Duke of Edinburgh doesn't have one either - having a Welsh title instead:

Duke of Gloucester, Earl of Ulster, Baron Culloden: E, NI, S
Duke of Kent, Earl of St Andrews, Baron Downpatrick: E, S, NI
Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Merioneth, Baron Greenwich: S, W, E
Duke of York, Earl of Inverness, Baron Killyleagh: E, S, NI
Duke of Cambridge, Earl of Strathearn, Baron Carrickfergus: E, S, NI
Duke of Sussex, Earl of Dumbarton, Baron Kilkeel: E, S, NI

Edward is a special case; he is currently: Earl of Wessex, Earl of Forfar, Viscount Severn: E, S, E/W (so, when is granted a Scottish Dukedom - he will have 2 Scottish titles but no Northern Irish title).

So, the most common order is: English Dukedom, Scottish Earldom and Northern Irish barony - but it is not set in stone.
Reply With Quote
  #5286  
Old 08-16-2020, 02:04 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
It is indeed most common but there is an exception: the Duke of Edinburgh doesn't have a Northern Irish subsidiary title and the expected next Duke of Edinburgh doesn't have one either - having a Welsh title instead:

Duke of Gloucester, Earl of Ulster, Baron Culloden: E, NI, S
Duke of Kent, Earl of St Andrews, Baron Downpatrick: E, S, NI
Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Merioneth, Baron Greenwich: S, W, E
Duke of York, Earl of Inverness, Baron Killyleagh: E, S, NI
Duke of Cambridge, Earl of Strathearn, Baron Carrickfergus: E, S, NI
Duke of Sussex, Earl of Dumbarton, Baron Kilkeel: E, S, NI

Edward is a special case; he is currently: Earl of Wessex, Earl of Forfar, Viscount Severn: E, S, E/W (so, when is granted a Scottish Dukedom - he will have 2 Scottish titles but no Northern Irish title).

So, the most common order is: English Dukedom, Scottish Earldom and Northern Irish barony - but it is not set in stone.
The Earl of Ulster title isn't exactly Northern Ireland but I take your point about the geographical spread. And the Gloucester dukedom was created nearly a century ago so the "Ulster" bit is understandable in its historical context. Obviously wouldn't be created today.
Reply With Quote
  #5287  
Old 08-16-2020, 02:09 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
Well yes Northern Irish of course.

Yes British royal dukes do as you say but we all know how sensitive these things can be & always have been. The fact that there will never be a Northern Irish royal dukedom is symbolic of that surely.
I think that is because USUALLY though not always, the main title - the Dukedom...is an English one.. then followed by a Scottish one and a N Irish one...
Reply With Quote
  #5288  
Old 08-16-2020, 02:11 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
I think that is because USUALLY though not always, the main title - the Dukedom...is an English one.. then followed by a Scottish one and a N Irish one...
Yes but also because it would be politically explosive to give a British prince a dukedom with a Northern Irish designation . That's a given surely.

Of Victoria's three younger sons one had a Scottish designation & one an Irish - Edinburgh & Connaught. Is Albany Scottish as well? Not sure about that.
Reply With Quote
  #5289  
Old 08-16-2020, 03:23 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
Yes but also because it would be politically explosive to give a British prince a dukedom with a Northern Irish designation . That's a given surely.

Of Victoria's three younger sons one had a Scottish designation & one an Irish - Edinburgh & Connaught. Is Albany Scottish as well? Not sure about that.
I looked it up and read that 'Albany' is the Gaelic name for Scotland.
Reply With Quote
  #5290  
Old 08-16-2020, 03:30 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
I looked it up and read that 'Albany' is the Gaelic name for Scotland.
Thank you. I've heard Alba as an ancient name for Scotland before so I should have made the connection. It seems it is an ancient Scottish dukedom first conferred on a younger brother of Robert III of Scotland according to Wikipedia.
Reply With Quote
  #5291  
Old 08-30-2020, 04:00 AM
AC21091968's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,446
Creation of Marquessates and Subsidiary Title in Royal Peer

I got two questions about the Marquess's nobility rank, particularly in the Royal peerage setting.

Marquess is ranked below Duke, but ranked above Earl. From memory, The Sovereign has not created a Marquessates for royal family members, since George V, particularly for his German relatives who lived in the United Kingdom. For example, Prince Louis of Battenberg became the 1st Marquess of Milford Haven.

The last Marquess created by the British crown was the Marquess of Willingdon for Freeman Freeman-Thomas, who was a Liberal politician and colonial governor. This royal title became extinct.

My first question is that why hasn't The Sovereign (including Queen Elizabeth II, George VI) created Marquessates? In other words, why hasn't The Queen created Marquesses for Antony Armstrong-Jones (Eventually 1st Earl of Snowdon), The Hon. Angus Ogilvy (He did however decline an earldom), Princess Edward (Now Earl of Wessex)?

My second question is that why is the preferred next-highest subsidiary title of Royal Dukes appears to be an Earldom, rather than Marquessates? For example, the subsidiary titles for Duke of Cambridge are Earl of Strathearn and Baron Carrickfergus, despite the fact Marquess is ranked above Earl.

Wikipedia could not give an explanation. My only predicted reason is distinction from non-royal peerages.

Link to Wikipedia page for Marquesses in the United Kingdom, specifically under Peerage of the United Kingdom: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marque...United_Kingdom

If anyone could give a possible reason, I would be very appreciated.
Reply With Quote
  #5292  
Old 08-30-2020, 06:20 AM
An Ard Ri's Avatar
Super Moderator
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: An IarmhÝ, Ireland
Posts: 32,079
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
Thank you. I've heard Alba as an ancient name for Scotland before so I should have made the connection. It seems it is an ancient Scottish dukedom first conferred on a younger brother of Robert III of Scotland according to Wikipedia.
Henry Stuart,Lord Darnley was created Duke of Albany and Earl of Ross prior to his marriage to Mary Queen of Scots in 1565.
Reply With Quote
  #5293  
Old 08-30-2020, 06:50 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by AC21091968 View Post
Marquess is ranked below Duke, but ranked above Earl. From memory, The Sovereign has not created a Marquessates for royal family members, since George V, particularly for his German relatives who lived in the United Kingdom. For example, Prince Louis of Battenberg became the 1st Marquess of Milford Haven.
Prince Louis of Battenberg had been naturalized as a British subject in 1868. The other relatives who were granted marquessates in 1917, the Duke of Teck and Prince Alexander of Battenberg, were British from birth, although I believe they did have dual nationality.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AC21091968 View Post
My first question is that why hasn't The Sovereign (including Queen Elizabeth II, George VI) created Marquessates? In other words, why hasn't The Queen created Marquesses for Antony Armstrong-Jones (Eventually 1st Earl of Snowdon), The Hon. Angus Ogilvy (He did however decline an earldom), Princess Edward (Now Earl of Wessex)?

My second question is that why is the preferred next-highest subsidiary title of Royal Dukes appears to be an Earldom, rather than Marquessates? For example, the subsidiary titles for Duke of Cambridge are Earl of Strathearn and Baron Carrickfergus, despite the fact Marquess is ranked above Earl.
Good question. It seems that since the reign of George II the dukedoms created for British princes have always been created with earldoms and baronies as their subsidiary titles. This is only a guess, but I suspect that is because, in Britain, the ranks of Earl and Baron are more ancient and remain more common today than the ranks of Marquess and Viscount.
Reply With Quote
  #5294  
Old 08-30-2020, 07:17 AM
AC21091968's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Prince Louis of Battenberg had been naturalized as a British subject in 1868. The other relatives who were granted marquessates in 1917, the Duke of Teck and Prince Alexander of Battenberg, were British from birth, although I believe they did have dual nationality.




Good question. It seems that since the reign of George II the dukedoms created for British princes have always been created with earldoms and baronies as their subsidiary titles. This is only a guess, but I suspect that is because, in Britain, the ranks of Earl and Baron are more ancient and remain more common today than the ranks of Marquess and Viscount.
Thank you very much for your insight and opinion. It appears to me that the subsidiary titles of royal dukedoms are "two ranks" below the greater title (Duke, Earl, Baron), rather than "one rank" below (Duke, Marquess, Earl) Examples include:
The subsidiary titles for Duke of Edinburgh: Earl of Merioneth, Baron Greenwich
The subsidiary titles for Duke of Gloucester: Earl of Earl of Ulster, Baron Culloden

However, for a Royal Earl, his subsidiary title is "one rank" below the greater title. There is only one subsidiary title, unlike the royal dukedom with two. Examples include:
The subsidiary title for Earl of Wessex: Viscount Severn
The subsidiary title for Earl of Snowdon: Viscount Linley

I don't know if I am just overthinking or is there something else quite significant about these differences.
Reply With Quote
  #5295  
Old 08-30-2020, 07:32 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by AC21091968 View Post
However, for a Royal Earl, his subsidiary title is "one rank" below the greater title. There is only one subsidiary title, unlike the royal dukedom with two. Examples include:
The subsidiary title for Earl of Wessex: Viscount Severn
The subsidiary title for Earl of Snowdon: Viscount Linley

I don't know if I am just overthinking or is there something else quite significant about these differences.
This is again a guess, but perhaps Queen Elizabeth II, who created both of those earldoms, thought at the time that it would not be ideal for the eldest son of a royal prince or princess, who would use the highest subsidiary title of his father as a courtesy, to be a mere baron.

Following British custom, the eldest son of a viscount or baron does not use a courtesy peerage and is simply referred to as The Honourable, as are his younger brothers and sistesrs. There would be little practical reason for creating a second subsidiary title for the Earls of Snowdon or Wessex, as it would not be expected to be used at all.
Reply With Quote
  #5296  
Old 08-30-2020, 07:32 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,477
Generally teh subsidiary title for an earl is a viscount, I don't think there is any particular reason for it. And of course sometimes people with a lower title such as Viscount or Baron, get further honors and are raised to an earldom or higher and then the older title of Viscount becomes the subsidiary title.
Reply With Quote
  #5297  
Old 08-30-2020, 07:37 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
Generally teh subsidiary title for an earl is a viscount, I don't think there is any particular reason for it.
Yes, according to a listing in Debrett's, that is true for about two-thirds of eldest sons of earls.
Reply With Quote
  #5298  
Old 08-30-2020, 08:20 AM
AC21091968's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
This is again a guess, but perhaps Queen Elizabeth II, who created both of those earldoms, thought at the time that it would not be ideal for the eldest son of a royal prince or princess, who would use the highest subsidiary title of his father as a courtesy, to be a mere baron.

Following British custom, the eldest son of a viscount or baron does not use a courtesy peerage and is simply referred to as The Honourable, as are his younger brothers and sistesrs. There would be little practical reason for creating a second subsidiary title for the Earls of Snowdon or Wessex, as it would not be expected to be used at all.
Thank you for your explanation on the absence of courtesy peerage for viscount or baron, which explain why there is no need for a second subsidiary title for Earls. It would make sense to me that, the Queen doesn't want James, Viscount Severn to be a Baron, while his older sister is Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor (style as a daughter of an earl). However, had Edward and Sophie have younger sons, they would be styled as The Hon. X Mountbatten-Windsor, while younger daughters would still be styled Lady X Windsor. The address and style for the children of an earl confused me a lot
Reply With Quote
  #5299  
Old 08-30-2020, 08:34 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by AC21091968 View Post
Thank you for your explanation on the absence of courtesy peerage for viscount or baron, which explain why there is no need for a second subsidiary title for Earls. It would make sense to me that, the Queen doesn't want James, Viscount Severn to be a Baron, while his older sister is Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor (style as a daughter of an earl). However, had Edward and Sophie have younger sons, they would be styled as The Hon. X Mountbatten-Windsor, while younger daughters would still be styled Lady X Windsor. The address and style for the children of an earl confused me a lot

Actually many earls also hold a subsidiary barony. For example, the Earl Spencer is also the Viscount Althorp, the Viscount Spencer and the Baron Spencer of Althorp.


Since, however, children of viscounts do not hold courtesy titles, the children of the eldest son of an earl who is a courtesy viscount are styled only "The Honourable [Forename] [Surname]".
Reply With Quote
  #5300  
Old 08-30-2020, 08:54 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 2,804
IIRC the marquessate and the viscountecy were not "original" titles in the Uk (and before in England or Scotland) as historically they came for the medieval (6th to 11th century AD) usage of using this to mark a border earldom (marquessate, in latin Marchio or Marchisus) around the borders of the Holy Roman Empire. England or Scotland never had these, but there were the "Marcher Lords" at the border to Wales, most of the Earls.

From the 1200s the title of Marchese (Italian), Markgraf (German) Marquis (French) became part of the ranking system of High Nobility. England followed at the end of the 1300s, but it took up to 100 years before the title of Marquess became more common in England at some time later in Scotland.

I think it was to have something to grant to an Earl who was not yet up to a duke but the marquessate never had any lands to go with it, it always just an honorary title. Same with the Viscount,┤more than a baron, but not yet an earl. Or the Baronet, more than a knight, but not a baron..


IMHO it's historically tradition to give "real" titles, that means titles that a one time meant the owner had to defend the king and his kingdom in his own realm - that were the Earls and Barons, later, the Dukes. Nobles who actually had political and military powers. While Marquesses and Viscounts were created later, "softer" titles for political personages and courtiers, as well as military commanders.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british royal family, consort, duke of york, kate, princess beatrice, queenmother, spouse, styles and titles, titles uk styles


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Non-British Styles and Titles Lord Sosnowitz Royal Ceremony and Protocol 792 08-22-2021 12:16 PM
Abdication Beatrix and Inauguration WA: Titles, Names, Succession, Precedence Princess Robijn King Willem-Alexander, Queen Mßxima and family 78 08-21-2021 07:14 AM
Diana's Styles and Titles florawindsor Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 894 11-26-2019 11:04 PM
Titles and Styles of Harry, his Future Wife and Children Aussie Princess The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family 1897 11-29-2017 03:13 AM
Styles and Titles Nahla10 Ruling Family of Dubai 50 06-02-2017 02:28 PM




Popular Tags
america american archie mountbatten-windsor asian birth britain britannia british british royal family buckingham palace camilla camilla's family camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles carolin china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing chinese colorblindness commonwealth countries coronation crown jewels customs dresses duchess of sussex duke of sussex edward vii elizabeth ii family tree fashion and style gemstones genetics george vi gradenigo harry and meghan henry viii highgrove history hochberg house of windsor hypothetical monarchs japan history kensington palace king edward vii king juan carlos liechtenstein lili mountbatten-windsor line of succession list of rulers medical meghan markle monarchy mongolia names nara period plantinum jubilee pless politics portugal prince harry queen elizabeth ii queen victoria st edward sussex suthida tradition unfinished portrait united states wales welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:10 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×