Questions about British Styles and Titles - Page 28

Warren · #**541** 06-25-2008, 01:04 PM

Please note that the Mary in Stefan's post above refers to Queen Mary (Princess May of Teck) and not Mary of York, later Princess Royal.
Prince Edward of York (later Edward VIII and Duke of Windsor) was born in 1894.

aria753 · #**542** 07-16-2008, 02:18 PM

I curious to know, does anyone know what title Prince Michael would have recieved if his marriage was approved? Also what titles would Princess Anne and Princess Alexandra husband's recieved if they taken one?

morhange · #**543** 07-16-2008, 02:27 PM

Prince Michael wouldn't get a title. His brother is the one with the ducal title. His marriage was approved, the British Royal Family has been much more lax with non-equal marriages than other countries (three of George V's daughter-in-laws would be considered unequal marriages, especially Wallis Simpson, and his son-in-law was "just a peer") but the only reason anything is wrong with Michael's marriage is that he married a papist and lost his place in the line of succession. He wouldn't have any title other than Prince Michael of Kent, whether he'd married Marie-Christine or a princess of the royal blood.

As for Anne and Alexandra, their husbands would probably have gotten earldoms. I know the queen offered one to Angus Ogilvy but he declined.

aria753 · #**544** 07-16-2008, 02:43 PM

Thanks. So that means the Duke of Gloucester would have also been like Prince Michael if his brother lived, Prince and Princess Richard of Gloucester. I had always assumed along with Prince they would recieve something else like Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex.

kimebear · #**545** 07-16-2008, 03:35 PM

Prince Edward is the son of the sovereign. As the son of the sovereign, HRH The Prince George (Prince Michael's father) received the additional title Duke of Kent upon his marriage. This is usually a practice reserved for the children of the sovereign only. Prince Michael is HRH Prince Michael of Kent as he is the granchild of a sovereign in the male line. Prince Michael's older brother, HRH Prince Edward of Kent succeeded his father as HRH The Duke of Kent. Upon the current Duke's death, his son, the Earl of St. Andrews will succeed to the title Duke of Kent as a peer, not as a royal duke.

BeatrixFan · #**546** 07-16-2008, 04:27 PM

Ogilvy was offered an Earldom but he declined it. He did accept a Knighthood but that was only because it was earned through his charity work and not by virtue of marriage.

Rebafan81 · #**547** 07-16-2008, 04:29 PM

I am so in awe of members of this forum and feel so very lucky to be able to take part, your knowledge of royalty is amazing. How can I learn more about English titles?

BeatrixFan · #**548** 07-16-2008, 04:31 PM

Hi Reba!

You should buy "Debretts Correct Form". It's about $14 and it'll tell you every detail you need to know about titles. And the details you don't!

aria753 · #**549** 07-16-2008, 05:16 PM

Can the Queen give any title she chooses, I have heard of titles that have gone extinct like the Duke of Clarence, though some aren't in the royal family, so is their certain titles she has under possesion to use, I always wondered with the growing family will she run out?

kimebear · #**550** 07-16-2008, 06:09 PM

Technically yes. The BRF has been playing a little fast and loose with titles in recent times. There are several ducal titles available such as Clarence, Cambridge and Sussex. However, that did not stop the creation of new titles such as Duke of Windsor and Earl of Wessex. Have no fear. They will certainly never run out.

aria753 · #**551** 07-17-2008, 01:14 AM

Thanks for the responses. It very interesting how it all works.

brandon · #**552** 07-18-2008, 03:10 PM

"Can the Queen give any title she chooses, I have heard of titles that have gone extinct like the Duke of Clarence, though some aren't in the royal family, so is their certain titles she has under possesion to use, I always wondered with the growing family will she run out?"

The Queen can give titles as the "fount of all honours", that's her prerogative. However, if you're referring to hereditary titles beyond her family, those are only given in consultation with the government of the day. If the Queen gives a title in future to any member of her family, it is indeed likely to be among those considered to belong to the reigning house rather than creating something entirely new (such as Wessex, although she may have decided to set a precedent and do some more of that in future). The Clarence title is not "extinct", it's merely not in use for some considerable time now. An extinct title would be one of a family holding an hereditary title where the last legitimate titleholder has died.

wbenson · #**553** 07-18-2008, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brandon

The Clarence title is not "extinct", it's merely not in use for some considerable time now. An extinct title would be one of a family holding an hereditary title where the last legitimate titleholder has died.

That's what happened with the last Duke of Clarence, though. He died with no heirs, so the title is now extinct and can be given again.

brandon · #**554** 07-18-2008, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wbenson

That's what happened with the last Duke of Clarence, though. He died with no heirs, so the title is now extinct and can be given again.

Clarence is a royal title which is peculiar to the reigning dynasty since the middle ages, so its non-use when the current titleholder has died is usually referred to as "reverting to the Crown". Of course all titles of an hereditary nature return to the Crown when they become extinct, but I'm making a distinction between those "ordinary" noble (but non royal) titles that become extinct when the last legitimate holder dies, and those peculiarly royal ones that simply are in non-use because the monarch hasn't granted them again to one of his or her family. Of course you can also rightly point out that non-royal hereditary titles have been granted again to different families over the course of British history (Oxford, Warwick, etc.) but those are still considered otherwise extinct unless and until they're recreated. You could also point to the Kent or Gloucester examples as a royal title that eventually becomes non-royal after a few generations but may die out and therefore become "extinct" and then revert to the Crown, but that case seems unusual to me, compared to the usual use of the word "extinct". I would never think of using the term "extinct" for instance in describing the scenario with the Edinburgh title, which will *revert* to the Crown upon the passing of the present Duke if he survives the Queen, after which it will have to be recreated by Charles III for his brother Wessex.

wbenson · #**555** 07-18-2008, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brandon

I would never think of using the term "extinct" for instance in describing the scenario with the Edinburgh title, which will *revert* to the Crown upon the passing of the present Duke if he survives the Queen, after which it will have to be recreated by Charles III for his brother Wessex.

Because it won't be extinct. It will have merged in the crown (which is different than reverting/extinction). (Barring some weird circumstance, like William having only daughters and he and his father dying before both the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh die, and Harry never having children or having only daughters)

brandon · #**556** 07-18-2008, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wbenson

Because it won't be extinct. It will have merged in the crown (which is different than reverting/extinction). (Barring some weird circumstance, like William having only daughters and he and his father dying before both the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh die, and Harry never having children or having only daughters)

Yes, merged is the absolute correct term. But extinct to me suggests a title that has not only run out of legitimate living heirs but is more likely than not to be never resurrected. With the royal ones, there's always still the off-chance they'll get recreated. The Edinburgh title will actually never descend to William and/or Harry unless something happens like the present Duke dying before the Queen, Charles becoming Duke and then in turn dying before his mother, in which case William would become third DoE in the present creation unless at that point the Queen takes some extraordinary step to make sure it merges already back to the Crown. The normal scenario they've planned is that Charles will recreate the title as monarch once he ascends the throne and Edward will become the first Duke in thatrecreated dukedom, while the young Severn will presumably assume the higher title of Wessex at the same point.

Melania · #**557** 08-06-2008, 05:17 PM

I have a question that I was hoping someone could answer for me. I tried reading through all of the posts in this thread, but didn't see an answer, so here goes...

Prince Michael of Kent doesn't have a peerage (he is not a duke, earl, etc.), so why are his children styled Lord and Lady, and will Lord Frederick's future children be styled Lord and Lady as well?

Thanks if you can answer my question.

kimebear · #**558** 08-06-2008, 05:43 PM

The Letters Patent of 1917 accorded the title of Lord/Lady to great grandchildren of a monarch in the male line, but this is where it ends. Lord Frederick's children will currently carry no title.

branchg · #**559** 08-06-2008, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kimebear

The Letters Patent of 1917 accorded the title of Lord/Lady to great grandchildren of a monarch in the male line, but this is where it ends. Lord Frederick's children will currently carry no title.

Technically, Lord/Lady is a courtesy style, not a title. The Letters Patent of 1917 provide that great-grandchildren of a Sovereign in the male line are styled as the children of a Duke.

Melania · #**560** 08-06-2008, 05:59 PM

Ok, thanks for answering my question.

I didn't know that. I'm glad I now know.

Also, someone said earlier in this thread that it would be nice if Prince Michael had been given a peerage, then there would be more titled Windsors to keep up with (or something similar to that effect). I also feel that this would have been a good thing, but if it was going to happen, it would have happened already.