The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #5301  
Old 08-30-2020, 08:55 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 2,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
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]".
Makes one remember Diana, who was so happy when her grandfather died and her father became the Earl, as she became "Lady" Diana through that...
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #5302  
Old 08-30-2020, 09:11 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kataryn View Post
Makes one remember Diana, who was so happy when her grandfather died and her father became the Earl, as she became "Lady" Diana through that...

Yes, that is correct. Her titles/styles throughout her life were:

  • 1 July 1961 – 9 June 1975: The Honourable Diana Frances Spencer
  • 9 June 1975 – 29 July 1981: Lady Diana Frances Spencer
  • 29 July 1981 – 28 August 1996: Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales
  • 28 August 1996 – 31 August 1997: Diana, Princess of Wales
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #5303  
Old 08-30-2020, 09:35 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kataryn View Post
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.
I agree with you. For a dynasty as ancient and relatively continuous as the British royal family, it makes sense to give priority to the titles with the earliest origins in the British Isles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
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]".
I know, but we were referring to fresh creations of earldoms for members of the royal family who did not previously hold any peerage. In these cases, there is no pressing need to create them an earl, a viscount and a baron, given that the last title will remain unused if the family follows the British custom for children of viscounts.

Having said that, previous British monarchs did create subsidiary peerages knowing they would never be used, such as the current Duke of Edinburgh's earldom and barony.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Yes, that is correct, Her titles/styles throughout her life were:

  • 1 July 1961 – 9 June 1975: The Honourable Diana Frances Spencer
  • 9 June 1975 – 29 July 1981: Lady Diana Frances Spencer
  • 29 July 1981 – 28 August 1996: Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales
  • 28 August 1996 – 31 August 1997: Diana, Princess of Wales
I believe she used just Diana, without her middle name, even before her marriage.
Reply With Quote
  #5304  
Old 08-30-2020, 10:21 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kataryn View Post
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.

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.
You make some good points. The titles of marquess & viscount always seem rather non British & more continental. More of an import & unnecessary.

Earl of course is the really ancient title with roots going back into Anglo Saxon England. They were very powerful men, kings in all but name in their areas.
Reply With Quote
  #5305  
Old 08-30-2020, 11:15 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,241
As far as I understand, the English dukedoms that date back to the Middle Ages were mostly (or all?) created for descendants of kings. Even the first duke of Norfolk, despite not being a royal duke himself, was nonetheless a descendant in maternal line of King Edward I, whose fifth son was the first Earl of Norfolk.


Who was the first English duke without a royal connection (either by blood or by marriage) ?
Reply With Quote
  #5306  
Old 08-30-2020, 11:15 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
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]".
The barony predates the earldom. The first Earl Spencer was created Viscount Spencer and Baron Spencer in 1761 then upgraded to Earl Spencer and Viscount Althorp in 1765.
Reply With Quote
  #5307  
Old 08-30-2020, 11:26 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
As far as I understand, the English dukedoms that date back to the Middle Ages were mostly (or all?) created for descendants of kings. Even the first duke of Norfolk, despite not being a royal duke himself, was nonetheless a descendant in maternal line of King Edward I, whose fifth son was the first Earl of Norfolk.


Who was the first English duke without a royal connection (either by blood or by marriage) ?
Bedford I think. I'll double check.

Yes - Bedford & then Devonshire. Both as reward for supporting William & Mary.
Reply With Quote
  #5308  
Old 08-30-2020, 11:54 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
As far as I understand, the English dukedoms that date back to the Middle Ages were mostly (or all?) created for descendants of kings. Even the first duke of Norfolk, despite not being a royal duke himself, was nonetheless a descendant in maternal line of King Edward I, whose fifth son was the first Earl of Norfolk.

Who was the first English duke without a royal connection (either by blood or by marriage) ?

It depends on your definition of "royal connection." All of the dukes created in the peerage of England (prior to the Act of Union 1707) were descended from the Plantagenent kings.

For example, John Dudley, the first "nonroyal" duke (Northumberland, created 1551) was a descendant of Edward I.

George Villiers, the second (Buckingham, created 1623) was descendant of Henry III.

The third, George Monck (Albemarle, created 1660) was the descendant of an illegitimate son of Edward IV.

But their royal connection were distant and had nothing to do with their elevation to the peerage.
Reply With Quote
  #5309  
Old 08-30-2020, 11:56 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
Bedford I think. I'll double check.

Yes - Bedford & then Devonshire. Both as reward for supporting William & Mary.

But several other non-royal dukedoms (now extinct) predated Bedford and Devonshire.
Reply With Quote
  #5310  
Old 08-30-2020, 11:58 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
But several other non-royal dukedoms (now extinct) predated Bedford and Devonshire.
I was thinking of existing dukedoms. Which ones predate Bedord?
Reply With Quote
  #5311  
Old 08-30-2020, 12:01 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
It depends on your definition of "royal connection." All of the dukes created in the peerage of England (prior to the Act of Union 1707) were descended from the Plantagenent kings.

For example, John Dudley, the first "nonroyal" duke (Northumberland, created 1551) was a descendant of Edward I.

George Villiers, the second (Buckingham, created 1623) was descendant of Henry III.

The third, George Monck (Albemarle, created 1660) was the descendant of an illegitimate son of Edward IV.

But their royal connection were distant and had nothing to do with their elevation to the peerage.
Well if we go that far back then yes virtually everyone of a certain social status will be of royal descent.
Reply With Quote
  #5312  
Old 08-30-2020, 12:02 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
It depends on your definition of "royal connection." All of the dukes created in the peerage of England (prior to the Act of Union 1707) were descended from the Plantagenent kings.

For example, John Dudley, the first "nonroyal" duke (Northumberland, created 1551) was a descendant of Edward I.

George Villiers, the second (Buckingham, created 1623) was descendant of Henry III.

The third, George Monck (Albemarle, created 1660) was the descendant of an illegitimate son of Edward IV.

But their royal connection were distant and had nothing to do with their elevation to the peerage.

I meant it in the stricter sense, i.e who were not direct legitimate descendants of an English king, either in paternal or maternal line.
Reply With Quote
  #5313  
Old 08-30-2020, 12:04 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
But several other non-royal dukedoms (now extinct) predated Bedford and Devonshire.
Well maybe Buckingham is the answer then?
Reply With Quote
  #5314  
Old 08-30-2020, 12:05 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
I meant it in the stricter sense, i.e who were not direct legitimate descendants of an English king, either in paternal or maternal line.
Thanks for the clarification.

John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland (1551) was the first English duke who did not have an immediate connection with the royal family. His son later married Lady Jane Grey, but not until 1553.

George Monck, Duke of Albemarle (1660) was the first English duke who did not have a legitimate line to an English king. He also lacked any legitimate connection by marriage.

ETA: I forgot about William de la Pole 1st Duke of Suffolk (1448). But he was a legitimate descendant of Edward I. So I guess it really depends on the closeness of the royal connection.
Reply With Quote
  #5315  
Old 08-30-2020, 01:39 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,662
I wonder whether the year-end-review will be used to make an announcement about Archie's future title (under Charles' reign) - which I expect to be that he won't become HRH prince Archie of Sussex. It might be smart to tie that in with any other announcements that are made at that time...
Reply With Quote
  #5316  
Old 08-30-2020, 01:46 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
I wonder whether the year-end-review will be used to make an announcement about Archie's future title (under Charles' reign) - which I expect to be that he won't become HRH prince Archie of Sussex. It might be smart to tie that in with any other announcements that are made at that time...
According to Finding Freedom, it appears that Harry and Meghan are not actually against Archie being titled , but tthey believe Archie should decide by himself ( when he is old enough) whether he wants a title or not, which is absolutely not how the system works and , once again, illustrates how arrogant and entitled they sound sometimes.
Reply With Quote
  #5317  
Old 08-30-2020, 01:55 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
According to Finding Freedom, it appears that Harry and Meghan are not actually against Archie being titled , but tthey believe Archie should decide by himself ( when he is old enough) whether he wants a title or not, which is absolutely not how the system works and , once again, illustrates how arrogant and entitled they sound sometimes.
While the queen and prince of Wales might take their wishes in mind; I would hope those would not be leading. It is the decision of the Sovereign not of his parents... And imho it's only logical that their decision to ditch royal duties and primarily identify with his American side instead of his British heritage impacts such a decision.
Reply With Quote
  #5318  
Old 08-30-2020, 02:46 PM
An Ard Ri's Avatar
Super Moderator
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: An Iarmhí, Ireland
Posts: 32,081
Wasn't Henry VIII the 1st English monarch to addressed as Your Majesty whilst the Kings of Scots continued to addressed as Your Grace up until the accession of James I.
Reply With Quote
  #5319  
Old 08-30-2020, 03:31 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,395
Quote:
Originally Posted by An Ard Ri View Post
Wasn't Henry VIII the 1st English monarch to addressed as Your Majesty whilst the Kings of Scots continued to addressed as Your Grace up until the accession of James I.
That's what Francois Velde says. Emperor Charles V started using Majesty and Henry VIII followed his example. "But in England the terms Majesty, Grace and Highness were all in use until the end of James I, when Majesty became exclusive."

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/royalty/highness.htm

The Pope referred to Henry VIII as "your majesty" in 1521, when he awarded him the title "Defender of the Faith":

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/bri...k.htm#Defender

According to a biography of Richard II, he insisted on being addressed as your majesty, following the practice of the French kings. Source: Nigel Saul, Richard II (Yale UP, 1997), p. 352.
Reply With Quote
  #5320  
Old 08-30-2020, 05:54 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
According to Finding Freedom, it appears that Harry and Meghan are not actually against Archie being titled , but tthey believe Archie should decide by himself ( when he is old enough) whether he wants a title or not, which is absolutely not how the system works and , once again, illustrates how arrogant and entitled they sound sometimes.

I suppose it depends on what it meant by "decide for himself."

If it means Archie would decide whether or not he his entitled to the HRH then I agree, its an arrogant attitude and (as Somebody pointed out) that's not how the system works.

On the other hand, if it means Archie (who under the current LP automatically becomes an HRH the moment his grandfather becomes King) is allowed to choose whether or not to use the HRH once he turns 18, then his situation would be similar to that of his Wessex cousins. According to Sophie, Louise and James don't use the HRH titles but "they have them and can decide to use them from 18, but I think it’s highly unlikely.” (interview in The Times, June 6, 2020).
__________________

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: 2 (0 members and 2 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 Máxima 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
american archie mountbatten-windsor asia asian british british royal family camilla camilla's family camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles carolin china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing chinese clarence house commonwealth countries coronation crown jewels customs daisy doge of venice dresses duchess of sussex duke of sussex edward vii family tree genetics george vi gradenigo harry and meghan hello! highgrove history hochberg house of windsor hypothetical monarchs japan japanese imperial family japan history jewellery kensington palace king edward vii king juan carlos książ castle liechtenstein lili mountbatten-windsor line of succession list of rulers meghan markle monarchists monarchy mongolia pless politics portugal prince harry queen elizabeth ii queen victoria royal ancestry solomon j solomon spanish royal family st edward sussex suthida thai royal family tradition unfinished portrait united states united states of america welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:57 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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