Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah, I would like to attend Iluvbertie's lectures, it's unbelievable, but I have no more questions! :flowers:
Thank you Osipi for patience :flowers:

May I come to that lecture too? :)

And I thank you for your questions, as I learned a couple of things I didn't know either. So there's even more proof for you there's no such thing as a stupid question. :flowers:

Welcome to TRF!! :flowers:
 
After the glorious revolution and the depositing of James II the English and Scottish parliaments offer the crowns to Mary II and William III as join sovereigns despite Mary having the superior heredity claim, unlike Philip William III was king in his own right and stay as such after his wife death. Obviously their ascending to the throne wasn't under normal circumstances and the parliaments only offer the crown to William because he refused to rule through his wife.


One major reason for this was William's own place in the line of succession to the British throne - 3rd at the time of the Glorious Revolution. They even dealt with the issue of Mary and William and William alone - a child of Mary and William would come before Anne in the line of succession but a child of William with someone else would come after Anne and her line.

Sure Mary didn't want to be Queen over her husband and he wouldn't accept the position as a mere consort but he also knew he was in a powerful position as 3rd in his own right. If they had decided to pass over Mary, over the issue of making his co-king he knew that if Anne didn't have any children who would be King in his own right anyway.

Philip, although in the line of succession to the British throne in his own right, is way down and moving further down (496 now).
 
May I come to that lecture too? :)

And I thank you for your questions, as I learned a couple of things I didn't know either. So there's even more proof for you there's no such thing as a stupid question. :flowers:

Welcome to TRF!! :flowers:
Go ahead :D
I would like to say thank you to Iluvbertie, Tiberivs, Osipi for your posts! It's amazing :)
When Prince Charles and William will be the Kings, will Kate and Camilla be created the Queen Consorts?
Thank you :flowers:
 
They won't need to be 'created' Queen Consort. That title is automatic. The wife takes the feminine form of her husband's titles in Britain e.g. Kate is Duchess of Cambridge because William is the Duke of Cambridge. Had William not been given a title in his own right then Kate would have become Princess William. Camilla is legally The Princess of Wales although she isn't using that title but is using the feminine of the title Charles has held for the longest period of time.

Even the Queen used Duchess of Edinburgh from her marriage until her accession as the wife of The Duke of Edinburgh.
 
A plaque unveiled by The Earl and Countess of Wessex commemorating the Diamond Jubilee | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

I've noticed in this photo (link above) the title "Prince and Princess Edward" before "Earl and Countess of Wessex.'' Now, I realize that this is their title but I didn't think that the P&P Edward part was ever actually used. There's another photo from today of just Sophie unveiling a plaque and the "Princess Edward" part was there, too, along with "The Countess of Wessex." Can anybody comment on this because I've never noticed it before?
 
Sophie is Her Royal Highness, the Princess Edward, Countess of Wessex officially. You see when using her name HRH. Sophie, Countess of Wessex.
 
There's another plaque somewhere that says Princess Edward. (I think it might be in southern Ontario somewhere, related to her colonelcy-in-chief of the Lincoln and Welland Regiment, but I'm not sure about that.)

ETA: It's in Ontario, but at Toronto General Hospital. See picture 2 in this post.
 
Last edited:
BP in the Court Circular only ever uses the official titles and never refers to Sophie as The Princess Edward (they don't refer to Edward as The Prince Edward either since he was raised from commoner status to that of a peer of the realm when created The Earl of Wessex).

These plaques say more about the ignorance of the people creating them and viewing them in the future than accuracy. They use the title The Prince Edward and/or The Princess Edward assuming people won't know who HRH The Earl of Wessex and/or HRH The Countess of Wessex actually are.
 
I've read through the various posts here and am still trying to understand why William and Catherine are now referred to as the Duke and Duchess rather than Prince and Princess William. I always thought Prince would be higher rank than Duke. Forgive me for being too dense to understand this.
 
I think its just a tradition to be honest, i'm sure there is a reason somewhere in time but nowadays its just the way the Royals title themselves; once given a peerage of their own they use it. IMO its better to refer to Kate as "The Duchess of Cambridge" rather than "Princess William".
 
I recently read that the title Duke is higher than a prince in rank. Of course a Prince of a Monarch out ranks anyone with a title that is not royal.
 
These plaques say more about the ignorance of the people creating them and viewing them in the future than accuracy. They use the title The Prince Edward and/or The Princess Edward assuming people won't know who HRH The Earl of Wessex and/or HRH The Countess of Wessex actually are.


The plaque says The Princess Edward, Countess of Wessex etc.....which is in fact her correct title....
 
There are Dukes and there are Royal Dukes (and Royal Earls). Royal Dukes are princes as well as being dukes.
 
The plaque says The Princess Edward, Countess of Wessex etc.....which is in fact her correct title....


No it isn't.

The use of style Prince with the substantive title of Earl/Countess is actually wrong.

Her full name is one or the other but not both combined.

The CC, which uses the correct titles never uses both - except for Charles when in Scotland where the Scots have always used The Prince Charles, The Duke of Rothesay.

Everyone else and everywhere else it is wrong to use both the Prince/Princess and the title.
 
I've read through the various posts here and am still trying to understand why William and Catherine are now referred to as the Duke and Duchess rather than Prince and Princess William. I always thought Prince would be higher rank than Duke. Forgive me for being too dense to understand this.


On the day the Queen created William Duke of Cambridge his status was changed markedly - from a commoner to a noble (Kate is still a commoner by the way - a royal but still a commoner). In Britain only the actual title holder is noble - not his/her spouse nor are any of the children.

Until he was created Duke of Cambridge he could have stood for election, and voted in the elections for the pre-1999 House of Commons.

Queen Victoria asked this very question when being encouraged to create her younger sons Dukes and was told that by creating them Dukes they wouldn't be able to be elected to the House of Commons as they would no longer be commoners.
 
Please forgive the ignorance, but how was Prince William ever a commoner? 3 levels, commoner, nobility, and royalty?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In the UK you are either the monarch, a peer or a commoner. So you can be a member of the royal family but technically you are a commoner. The same can be said for the children of peers, they may have courtesy titles but strictly speaking they are commoners.
 
Just to check so I understand, so it is he is royal but before he had a title of his own he was a commoner and then a noble because he has a title of his own. His wife nor future children have been given a tile so they are given the status of commoner. If the queen had given Catherine the status of Princess of the United Kingdom would that have made her noble because she was given it in her own right? Very interesting.

Just a note on Prince Charles. When he was born, because he was the first born son of the heir, did he receive the title the Duke of Cornwall at birth or once his Grandfather's death. When he got that title he then moved from commoner to noble or did that happen once he was made Prince of Wales.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just a note on Prince Charles. When he was born, because he was the first born son of the heir, did he receive the title the Duke of Cornwall at birth or once his Grandfather's death. When he got that title he then moved from commoner to noble or did that happen once he was made Prince of Wales.
Charles automatically became HRH The Duke of Cornwall the moment his grandfather died and his mother succeeded to the throne. Before that he was HRH Prince Charles of Edinburgh.
 
I've read through the various posts here and am still trying to understand why William and Catherine are now referred to as the Duke and Duchess rather than Prince and Princess William. I always thought Prince would be higher rank than Duke. Forgive me for being too dense to understand this.
A Prince as a title is higher than that of a Duke. However, the title of a Royal Duke is, as it were, the highest card in the deck.
A Royal Duke is a holder of the peerage title of a Duke who is also member of the Royal Family and entitled to the style of Royal Highness.

There are currently only eight Royal Dukedoms. According to their rankings, William's title is the third lowest one:
- Lancaster (Queen Elizabeth is The Duke - not Duchess - of Lancaster)
- Edinburgh (held by Prince Philip)
- Cornwall (held by Prince Charles)
- Rothesay (held by Prince Charles)
- York (held by Prince Andrew)
- Cambridge (held by Prince William)
- Gloucester (held by Prince Richard)
- Kent (held by Prince Edward)

Prince William's title of a Duke is thus higher than his (automatic) birth title of a Prince; since the highest available title is usually used, he is known as the Duke of Cambridge. Prince Charles' highest peerage title is The Prince of Wales. In Scotland, his highest title is The Duke of Rothesay (title traditionally given to the Heir Apparent to the Scottish Throne); thus, when Prince Charles is in Scotland, he is known as the Duke of Rothesay.
 
Last edited:
Please forgive the ignorance, but how was Prince William ever a commoner? 3 levels, commoner, nobility, and royalty?
It is perfectly possible to be a royal and a commoner.
According to British law, only the Sovereign and the Peers are not commoners. That means that while Prince William (as the Duke of Cambridge - a peer) is no longer a commoner, Prince Harry (who isn't a peer as of now) is still a one. Similarly, Princess Anne, Princess Beatrice, Princess Eugenie, Lady Louise and even Viscount Severn (his title is by courtesy, not in his own right) are all commoners by law.

Just a note on Prince Charles. When he was born, because he was the first born son of the heir, did he receive the title the Duke of Cornwall at birth or once his Grandfather's death. When he got that title he then moved from commoner to noble or did that happen once he was made Prince of Wales.
Duke of Cornwall is a title that can only belong to the Heir Apparent to the Throne who is the son - never grandson or other relative - of the Monarch.
If, for example, Prince Charles were to die before ascending to the Throne, Prince William, as Queen Elizabeth's grandson, would NOT become the Duke of Cornwall. On the other hand, if Prince Charles were childless and died before ascending to the Throne, Prince Andrew (as the new Heir Apparent and the Sovereign's son) would automatically become the Duke of Cornwall.

When Charles was born, he was the Heir Apparent of the Heiress Presumptive; as such, he couldn't have the title. In fact, had George VI not passed Letters Patent 1948, Prince Charles wouldn't even be a Prince or a Royal Highness; as female-line grandson of the Sovereign, he could only inherit titles from his father and be titled by courtesy as Earl of Merioneth (his father's second highest title).

The moment George VI dies (and Charles became Heir Apparent to the Throne) he ceased to be a commoner and became a Peer - as Duke of Cornwall (and other automatic titles Heir Apparent assumes). He was created The Prince of Wales in addition to the titles he already possessed; thus, from 1952 and onwards Charles was never a commoner.
 
Last edited:
Just to check so I understand, so it is he is royal but before he had a title of his own he was a commoner and then a noble because he has a title of his own. His wife nor future children have been given a tile so they are given the status of commoner. If the queen had given Catherine the status of Princess of the United Kingdom would that have made her noble because she was given it in her own right? Very interesting.


No - being a Princess of the UK (which she is as the wife of a Prince of the UK) doesn't make one a noble e.g. Beatrice, Eugenie, Anne and Alexandra (and Louise) are all Princesses of the UK and have been since birth but they are all still commoners.

Nobles are those with substantive titles in their own right - Philip, Charles, William, Andrew, Edward, Richard and Edward (Duke of Kent) are the only royals who are noble. All the rest, Camilla, Kate, Harry, Beatrice, Eugenie, Sophie, Anne, Birgitte, Katherine (Duchess of Kent) even though HRH Prince/Princess either from birth or by marriage are still commoners.

The Queen went from being a commoner to being The Queen. She was never a noble.

Just a note on Prince Charles. When he was born, because he was the first born son of the heir, did he receive the title the Duke of Cornwall at birth or once his Grandfather's death. When he got that title he then moved from commoner to noble or did that happen once he was made Prince of Wales.


Charles became a noble the instant his grandfather died when he became Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay etc.

Therefore he was already a noble when he was created Prince of Wales, Earl of Chester in 1958.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
NGalitzine said:
Charles automatically became HRH The Duke of Cornwall the moment his grandfather died and his mother succeeded to the throne. Before that he was HRH Prince Charles of Edinburgh.

Thanks NGalitzine. So, peer = nobility?
 
Artemisia,

Very good explanation on the commoner question. You are indeed a font of knowledge, thank you.
 
Last edited:
Another question please.... Why is Duke of York higher than Duke of Cambridge?
 
Last edited:
Jenafran said:
Another question please.... Why is Duke of York higher than Duke of Cambridge?

It depends on how you are measuring "higher" by reference to the order of precedence (Andrew is higher) or line of succession (William).


The Duke of York, as the son of the reigning monarch takes precedence over the grandson of the monarch.

The Duke of Cambridge, of course, is higher in the order of succession but the orders of succession and precedence are two different things.
 
Another question please.... Why is Duke of York higher than Duke of Cambridge?

Another reason why The Duke of York is higher is that that title was created first - so order of creation also plays a part in some areas of precedence.

So precedence can depend on

1. relationship to the monarch - with all children ahead of all grandchildren.
2. order of succession
3. date of creation of the title

Depending on the circumstances one of the above will apply.
 
Just checking, I did not thank just by marrying into the family made you a Princess or Prince of the United Kingdom. I thought the Queen had to make her husband a Prince of the UK and that is why he is Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh. On the other hand Catherine is Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. I have heard that is something a spouse will do once they be become Monarch. Like Charles will one day make Camilla a Princess in her own right and William with Catherine. Right or wrong. Thanks for all the info and help on this it is very fascinating.
 
Philip was actually a prince from birth of Greece and Denmark but prior to his marriage to Elizabeth, he renounced that title and George VI created him the Duke of Edinburgh. It was after Elizabeth became sovereign that she issued letters patent creating Philip a Prince of the UK.

Catherine and Camilla are princesses of the UK actually (Catherine is Princess WIlliam and Camilla is The Princess of Wales but prefers to be styled as The Duchess of Cornwall). As wives take their titles from their husbands, as long as they are married, it is HRH The Duchess of Cambridge and HRH The Duchess of Cornwall. If you see titles such as Diana, Princess of Wales or Sarah, Duchess of York with the woman's first name, it denotes a divorced wife of a peer. As it stands right now, once Charles becomes the sovereign, Camilla will be his Queen Consort and the same would apply to Catherine once William becomes king. The only change I can see happening with William and Catherine is if Charles creates William. The Prince of Wales. Then Catherine would be The Princess of Wales. I don't see either one of these women being created a Princess of the UK in their own right.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It is fascinating! So I've got another question :) I see a lot of royalty being prince or princess of Greece and Denmark...how?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom