The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #5321  
Old 08-30-2020, 06:16 PM
AC21091968's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,446
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.
It appears that I have found the answer to the lack of creation of Marquesses and lack of usage of Marquesses as lesser title. Thank you Kataryn for your insightful explanation.

I would also like to thank Tatiana Maria and Gawin for your excellent contributions.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #5322  
Old 08-30-2020, 07:26 PM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 12,817
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
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.
How about Charles Brandon? While he did eventually marry Mary Tudor, he was made Duke of Suffolk prior to this. He was made Duke in 1514, and he didn't have any close familial connection to the royal family.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #5323  
Old 08-30-2020, 07:40 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Countessmeout View Post
How about Charles Brandon? While he did eventually marry Mary Tudor, he was made Duke of Suffolk prior to this. He was made Duke in 1514, and he didn't have any close familial connection to the royal family.

Yes, you're right. I'd forgotten that he was created Duke before he married Henry VIII's sister.

So William de la Pole was the first Duke without a close family relationship with the royal family, followed by Charles Brandon, and then John Dudley.

It's interesting that in each case a close relationship was eventually established:

De la Pole's son and successor John married first (as a child) Margaret Beaufort, Henry VI's second cousin (marriage annulled three years later, she became the mother of Henry VII by her 2nd marriage) and second Elizabeth of York, whose brother became Edward IV.

Brandon married Henry VIII's sister Mary while Dudley's son Guildford married Lady Jane Grey.
Reply With Quote
  #5324  
Old 09-06-2020, 08:22 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,241
The attached file is my summary table of British royal and noble titles and styles with a few explanatory notes. I hope I got everything right.
Attached Files
File Type: doc British-Address-and-Styles-v3-1.doc (87.0 KB, 48 views)
Reply With Quote
  #5325  
Old 09-06-2020, 09:44 AM
AC21091968's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
The attached file is my summary table of British royal and noble titles and styles with a few explanatory notes. I hope I got everything right.
Thank you Mbruno for the table of British Royal and Noble Title and styles!!! It really did clarify my previous confusion on the address of Non-royal peers (other than Duke).
Reply With Quote
  #5326  
Old 09-06-2020, 12:07 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by AC21091968 View Post
Thank you Mbruno for the table of British Royal and Noble Title and styles!!! It really did clarify my previous confusion on the address of Non-royal peers (other than Duke).
Yes I second that! Very useful.

There's also this with regard to British dukes:

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...6AEwAHoECAIQAg

I'm pretty sure for instance that at least one of the Beaufort monuments at Great Badminton church refers to the duke (dukes) as a prince. There may well be other examples elsewhere.
Reply With Quote
  #5327  
Old 09-10-2020, 07:15 AM
AC21091968's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,446
Styles of Prince without Peerage (Royal Commoner)

I have more questions on British Styles and Titles. These are more hypothetical than my previous ones.

Is there a specific reason why Prince Michael of Kent was not given a royal peerage upon marriage (i.e. not elevated from Royal Commoner to Royal peer)?

I can understand why he is not bestow upon a Dukedom, as he is the youngest son of Prince George, (1st) Duke of Kent. But is it possible that he could be offered an Earldom? This is given that The Hon. Angus Ogilvy, Princess Alexandra's husband was offered the Earldom, but turn it down.

Is it because he is not intended to be a working royal? Or is it because he is already a younger son of a Royal Duke, who is the younger son of George V?

If Prince and Princess Michael of Kent have more children, would they still be style as Lord/Lady X Windsor? or The Hon. X Windsor?

Is they (Lord Frederick and Lady Gabriella's younger siblings) are style Lord/Lady X Windsor, wouldn't they outrank the younger sons of a Royal Earl (irrespective of line of succession)? This is given that younger sons of an Earl are style as The Hon. X Surname.

It would be greatly appreciated if you can provide some answers, opinions and thoughts.
Reply With Quote
  #5328  
Old 09-10-2020, 07:42 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by AC21091968 View Post
I have more questions on British Styles and Titles. These are more hypothetical than my previous ones.

Is there a specific reason why Prince Michael of Kent was not given a royal peerage upon marriage (i.e. not elevated from Royal Commoner to Royal peer)?

I can understand why he is not bestow upon a Dukedom, as he is the youngest son of Prince George, (1st) Duke of Kent. But is it possible that he could be offered an Earldom? This is given that The Hon. Angus Ogilvy, Princess Alexandra's husband was offered the Earldom, but turn it down.

Is it because he is not intended to be a working royal? Or is it because he is already a younger son of a Royal Duke, who is the younger son of George V?

If Prince and Princess Michael of Kent have more children, would they still be style as Lord/Lady X Windsor? or The Hon. X Windsor?

Is they (Lord Frederick and Lady Gabriella's younger siblings) are style Lord/Lady X Windsor, wouldn't they outrank the younger sons of a Royal Earl (irrespective of line of succession)? This is given that younger sons of an Earl are style as The Hon. X Surname.

It would be greatly appreciated if you can provide some answers, opinions and thoughts.

If Prince Michael had more children, they would all be Lord/Lady xxx Windsor as great-grandchildren of a British sovereign in paternal line who are not princes/princesses themselves.



It is basically up to the King (or the reigning Queen) whether a prince is created a peer or not. The current practice seems to be that only sons of sovereigns and sons of the Prince of Wales are given peerages. The eldest sons of sons of sovereigns obviously inherit the peerage if they outlive their fathers.
Reply With Quote
  #5329  
Old 09-10-2020, 08:01 AM
AC21091968's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
If Prince Michael had more children, they would all be Lord/Lady xxx Windsor as great-grandchildren of a British sovereign in paternal line who are not princes/princesses themselves.



It is basically up to the King (or the reigning Queen) whether a prince is created a peer or not. The current practice seems to be that only sons of sovereigns and sons of the Prince of Wales are given peerages. The eldest sons of sons of sovereigns obviously inherit the peerage if they outlive their fathers.
Thank you very much for your answers.

Sorry if I repeated myself. If the Earl and Countess of Wessex have more children, would the younger sons style as The Hon. X rather than Lord X Windsor (as younger sons of an Earl)? This is despite that they are legally HRH Princes X of Wessex, according 1917 Letters Patents. It sounds like a big gap from Prince X of Wessex to The Hon. X Windsor.
Reply With Quote
  #5330  
Old 09-10-2020, 08:21 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by AC21091968 View Post
Thank you very much for your answers.

Sorry if I repeated myself. If the Earl and Countess of Wessex have more children, would the younger sons style as The Hon. X rather than Lord X Windsor (as younger sons of an Earl)? This is despite that they are legally HRH Princes X of Wessex, according 1917 Letters Patents. It sounds like a big gap from Prince X of Wessex to The Hon. X Windsor.
Yes Unless things were done differently if Sophie and Edward had had a younger son, he would be the Hon X Mountbatten Windsor.. the decsion was that Ed's children would be styled as the children of an earl.. so his daughers would be Lady X M Windsor, his eldest son would go by his father's second title.. and his younger sons would be honourables.
Reply With Quote
  #5331  
Old 09-10-2020, 08:33 AM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by AC21091968 View Post
I have more questions on British Styles and Titles. These are more hypothetical than my previous ones.

Is there a specific reason why Prince Michael of Kent was not given a royal peerage upon marriage (i.e. not elevated from Royal Commoner to Royal peer)?

I can understand why he is not bestow upon a Dukedom, as he is the youngest son of Prince George, (1st) Duke of Kent. But is it possible that he could be offered an Earldom? This is given that The Hon. Angus Ogilvy, Princess Alexandra's husband was offered the Earldom, but turn it down.

Is it because he is not intended to be a working royal? Or is it because he is already a younger son of a Royal Duke, who is the younger son of George V?

If Prince and Princess Michael of Kent have more children, would they still be style as Lord/Lady X Windsor? or The Hon. X Windsor?

Is they (Lord Frederick and Lady Gabriella's younger siblings) are style Lord/Lady X Windsor, wouldn't they outrank the younger sons of a Royal Earl (irrespective of line of succession)? This is given that younger sons of an Earl are style as The Hon. X Surname.

It would be greatly appreciated if you can provide some answers, opinions and thoughts.
None of the queen's cousins was created a peer. So, it would have been a little strange to create only Michael a peer. Had Richard's older brother still been a live, he would still have been known as Prince Richard of Gloucester, just like Michael is known as prince Michael of Kent.

The main reason to offer a peerage (earldom) to the husband's of princesses was to make sure that their children would be titled. This wasn't needed in Michael's case, as his children were already titled as they are styled as children of dukes.
Reply With Quote
  #5332  
Old 09-10-2020, 08:50 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
None of the queen's cousins was created a peer. So, it would have been a little strange to create only Michael a peer. Had Richard's older brother still been a live, he would still have been known as Prince Richard of Gloucester, just like Michael is known as prince Michael of Kent.

The main reason to offer a peerage (earldom) to the husband's of princesses was to make sure that their children would be titled. This wasn't needed in Michael's case, as his children were already titled as they are styled as children of dukes.
I think even if Michael had been needed for royal duties for a bit, its not likely he would have been created a peer. By the time he married Marie C, hte days of creating titles for royals had long since gone. Its possible that the queen wanted Mark and Anne to have a title so that her first grandchild would have one but M and Anne refused. And I think they were right. The time had long since passed for it to be felt necessary to give even teh Monarch's daughters' husbands an earldom
Reply With Quote
  #5333  
Old 09-10-2020, 04:41 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by AC21091968 View Post
Is there a specific reason why Prince Michael of Kent was not given a royal peerage upon marriage (i.e. not elevated from Royal Commoner to Royal peer)?
Tradition. The sons of the younger sons of UK monarchs have never been given peerages in their own right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AC21091968 View Post
If Prince and Princess Michael of Kent have more children, would they still be style as Lord/Lady X Windsor? or The Hon. X Windsor?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
If Prince Michael had more children, they would all be Lord/Lady xxx Windsor as great-grandchildren of a British sovereign in paternal line who are not princes/princesses themselves.
And this rule was established by the 1917 Letters Patent.

"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"


Quote:
Originally Posted by AC21091968 View Post
Is they (Lord Frederick and Lady Gabriella's younger siblings) are style Lord/Lady X Windsor, wouldn't they outrank the younger sons of a Royal Earl (irrespective of line of succession)? This is given that younger sons of an Earl are style as The Hon. X Surname.
According to reference works such as Debrett's, the rank and precedence of members of the Royal Family are decided by their kinship to the Sovereign and not by the titles by which they are styled.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
By the time he married Marie C, hte days of creating titles for royals had long since gone.
The Queen created a second earldom for Prince Edward only last year. Had it been the British tradition for younger sons of younger sons to be created dukes, I am sure that would have applied to Michael also.
Reply With Quote
  #5334  
Old 09-10-2020, 06:02 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
According to reference works such as Debrett's, the rank and precedence of members of the Royal Family are decided by their kinship to the Sovereign and not by the titles by which they are styled.




That is true. According to Debrett's, Peter Phillips for example (as a grandson of the Queen) and the Earl of Snowdon (as the Queen's nephew) have higher precedence than the Duke of Gloiucester or the Duke of Kent even though the latter are HRHs and the former are not.


Having said that, Debrett's precedence is not always observed in practice. Theoretically, the Duke of York and the Earl of Wessex have higher precedence than the Duke of Cambridge for example, but that is not what we see in Court events like state dinners (Prince William always walks and is seated ahead of his uncles). It makes me wonder what the actual order of precedence is these days.
Reply With Quote
  #5335  
Old 09-10-2020, 11:37 PM
MaiaMia_53's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 1,918
Is it true that Louise and James could decide to use their HRH Prince and Princess titles when they become 18? They probably won't, but the idea that they would then have the right to choose to do so is interesting. I wonder how they feel about it. Most likely they are happy to continue with the current titles they are using. And when Prince Philip passes, the Duke of Edinburgh title will pass to Edward and then to James.

I will be interested to see what type of work James and Louise are going to pursue as adults. Perhaps Louise will become involved in some area of the horse industry.
Reply With Quote
  #5336  
Old 09-11-2020, 01:18 AM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 12,817
Duke of Edinburgh will not pass to Edward. It will pass to Charles. It is a hereditary title. It passes to the eldest son. Edward will get it when Charles is king and the title merges with the crown and is free to award again. At that time it could be created with a remainder to a female heir but I sadly don't see Charles doing anything revolutionary, just like his mother.


As for the titles it makes sense. Louise and James are HRH Prince/ss of Great Britain. All male line grandchildren of the queen are. It would have required Lps to be issued for them not to be. It was simply made known by their parents that their children would be addressed as the children of an earl.


This is the same as Archie. Archie is Archie, Earl of Dumbarton. But it was made known that he would simply be referred to as Archie Mountbattan-Windsor.


As Louise, James and Archie are minors, the decision lays with their parents. When they come of age it would be up to them if they choose to use their titles. I agree it seems unlikely. As they wont be working royals there is little need for the Wessex kids to. And after 18 years it would be odd to change.
Reply With Quote
  #5337  
Old 09-11-2020, 04:04 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaiaMia_53 View Post
Is it true that Louise and James could decide to use their HRH Prince and Princess titles when they become 18?
See here: https://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...ml#post2318933


Quote:
Originally Posted by Countessmeout View Post
As for the titles it makes sense. Louise and James are HRH Prince/ss of Great Britain. All male line grandchildren of the queen are. It would have required Lps to be issued for them not to be. It was simply made known by their parents that their children would be addressed as the children of an earl.
There is no consensus about whether letters patent are required or whether any statement of the Queen's will is sufficient.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Countessmeout View Post
This is the same as Archie. Archie is Archie, Earl of Dumbarton. But it was made known that he would simply be referred to as Archie Mountbattan-Windsor.
The legal Earl of Dumbarton is the Duke of Sussex. Archie Mountbatten-Windsor has the conventional right to be referred to by his father's second title. In that case, he would be formally referred to as simply the Earl of Dumbarton, without the usage of his forename (which is the style used for widows and divorcees).
Reply With Quote
  #5338  
Old 09-11-2020, 08:52 PM
AC21091968's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,446
I would like to thank every posters for answering my questions with insightful details and explanation. Without sounding ungrateful, I would like to ask some more questions.

Are Maud and Isabella Windsor (daughters of Lord and Lady Frederick Windsor) and Albert, Leopold and Louis Windsor (sons of Lord and Lady Nicholas Windsor) styled as Miss and Master (or Mr. in adult) or The Hon. X Windsor?

From a tweet on Princess Eugenie's bridal party from The Royal Family account, Maud is referred as Miss Maud Windsor.
https://twitter.com/RoyalFamily/stat...24759135035392

Does this mean The Hon. title is only restricted to the direct (eldest male) line of succession of Dukedom of Kent?

If that is the case, are the children of the younger son of a non-royal Duke or Marquess style as The Hon X [Surname] or Mr/Miss X [Surname]?
Reply With Quote
  #5339  
Old 09-11-2020, 11:21 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,427
This may help answer some of the questions.

https://www.historic-uk.com/CultureU...itish-Peerage/
Reply With Quote
  #5340  
Old 09-19-2020, 07:21 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,427
Was Prince Charles ever referred to as Prince Charles of Edinburgh before February 1952? If he wasn't I wonder why not as his parents were of course the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh during King George VI's lifetime.
__________________

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 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
america american archie mountbatten-windsor asia asian britain british british royal family camilla's family camilla parker bowles carolin china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing clarence house colorblindness commonwealth countries crown jewels customs daisy doge of venice dresses duchess of sussex duke of sussex edward vii family tree genetics gradenigo harry and meghan hello! highgrove history hochberg house of windsor 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 medical meghan markle monarchist movements monarchists monarchy nara period plantinum jubilee 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 01:29 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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