Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Artemisia]

I was under the impression the title is automatic for any Heir Apparent, not just the heir apparent who is also the Sovereign's son. However, the Act of Parliament 1469 does indeed clearly state that the Heir Apparent must be the King's son as well and the title is not inherited by his heir.



Just out of curiosity, is below the correct succession to the titles (as heir apparent) Prince Charles holds?

- Prince of Wales
Held by the Heir Apparent to the Throne (whether son or grandson of the Monarch). The title is not automatic and must be created for the heir.

- Duke of Cornwall
Held by the Heir Apparent to the Throne who is also the Monarch's eldest surviving son. In case of the Heir's death, it cannot be inherited by his own Heir Apparent, but could be inherited by the Heir's brother (the Sovereign's next eldest surviving son), assuming the latter becomes heir apparent as well.

- Duke of Rothesay
Held by the Heir Apparent to the Scottish Throne who is also the Monarch's eldest surviving son. In case of the Heir's death, it cannot be inherited by his own Heir Apparent, but could be inherited by the Heir's brother (the Sovereign's next eldest surviving son), assuming the latter becomes heir apparent as well.

- Earl of Carrick
Held by the eldest surviving son of the Monarch who is also Heir Apparent to the Throne.

- Baron Renfrew
Held by the Heir Apparent to the Throne.

- Lord of the Isles
Held by the eldest surviving male child of the reigning Scottish (British Monarch).

- Prince and Great Steward of Scotland
Titles of the Heir Apparent to the Throne, whether the Sovereign's son or other descendant.

 

[Danish girl]

If William died would his brother get his titles?
And if so... Would Catherine and Harry's wife have the same titles, or would she loose them?

 

[Lumutqueen]

If William died would his brother get his titles?
And if so... Would Catherine and Harry's wife have the same titles, or would she loose them?

Harry would not get his brother's titles if he should die. My understanding is with no heirs, the title would end with William but Catherine would still be The Duchess, although now having no ties to the royal family doubt she'd want to keep it.

 

[Iluvbertie]

If William died would his brother get his titles?
And if so... Would Catherine and Harry's wife have the same titles, or would she loose them?

The LPs for the title I believe have the normal remainder which means that no Harry can't inherit the title as he won't be a male line descendent of William's.

Should William die before he and Kate have any children the title would become extinct with his death. Kate would remain HRH The Duchess of Cambridge until she either died or remarried.

If William and Kate had a son that son would inherit the title on his father's death, assuming that is before William becomes King. Kate would still remain HRH Duchess of Cambridge, again until death or remarriage - not the dropping the the word The in her title - the person who is the wife of The Duke is The Duchess - she would correctly be The Dowager Duchess of Cambridge.

Interestingly when they change the succession laws if William and Kate have a daughter and then a son and William dies before becoming King the Cambridge title would still pass to the son and eventually, like Gloucester and Kent and Edinburgh cease to be held by an HRH. Gloucester and Kent's next holders are not HRH and so the title will lose that designation and assuming Charles or William respect the decision announced in 1999 after Edward gets Edinburgh it will still be held by an HRH but once it passes to James and beyond it won't be.

 

[Lumutqueen]

How would someone go about changing the laws for the inheritance of dukedoms? So that was equal as well. I find it awful that royal titles won't be held by HRH's in future years.

 

[Artemisia]

Laws of inheritance for future titles, royal or noble, can be stipulated in the Letters Patent of Orders-in-Council creating them.
It is possible than in another decade or two, newly created dukedoms will be limited to male-line children and grandchildren (possibly, great-grandchildren as well) of the Monarch, to avoid them eventually becoming non-royal dukedoms. It is also possible equal primogeniture is adopted for all newly created titles as well; what with equality and PC rules, it is highly unlikely the current situation of total exclusion of female inheritance (for most titles) will last for much longer.

Any changes in laws of inheritance for already existing titles would require parliamentary acts and the Sovereign's consent. It's really quite a difficult process, and I doubt anyone is going to start it in near future.

 

[sophie25]

After observing the celebrations for Queen Elizabeth's jubilee yesterday I am finding the rank of Albert of Monanco quite interesting. On a general level I know an HRH outranks a HSH but Albert's position as a Sovereign and Charlene's as his Princess Consort seem to exempt them from that. I have noticed that at big Royal events he is usually placed secondary to Monarchs but always ahead of Crown Princes and Princesses so I imagine that a Prince who is a head of state must be ranked higher for that reason regardless of the letters in front of his title. It's the same with the Grand Duke of Luxembourg I suppose who is always placed ahead of Crown Princes as well, again because he is a head of state. So at this point in time Princess Charlene, as the wife of a Sovereign, outranks Princess Mary of Denmark, Catherine of Britain etc but will be overtaken by them when their husband's become King. Quite interesting to think about.

 

[Warren]

A royal Head of State is a royal Head of State, no matter whether their formal style is Majesty, Highness or Serene Highness, or their title is King, Queen, Emir or Grand Duke etc.

Ranking among royal Heads of State is based on the year of accession, thus Elizabeth II (1952) and the King of Thailand (1946) are the world's "senior" reigning monarchs. HM the King of Tonga (2012) and HM the Yang di-Pertuan Agong [King] of Malaysia (2011) are the most recent. HSH The Prince of Monaco is a relatively "new" sovereign having succeeded to the throne in 2005.

It is notable that in the formal photograph of World Sovereigns taken at the Windsor Castle luncheon, the Queen has King Michael of Romania (1927 and 1940) sitting on her right, and King Simeon of Bulgaria (1943) on her left. Next to King Michael is King Constantine of Greece (1964) and next to King Simeon is the Sultan of Brunei (1967). This is the ranking. Also of note is that at their private functions, the Gotha or royal caste accord an ex-King and Queen (or former reigning Prince, Grand Duke, whatever, and spouses) their sovereign ranking as reigning Monarchs.

Thus when Frederik succeeds his mother to become HM Frederik X, King of Denmark, HSH the Princess of Monaco (Charlene) will in the royal hierarchy place higher than that of Frederik's consort, HM Queen Mary.

Royal ranking is no different to that used within the Diplomatic Corps; the doyen of Ambassadors in most countries is the one who has served in his or her post the longest. It's straightforward and very simple: Seniority rules!

 

[principessa]

If I want to write a letter to the Earl of Ulster or the Earl of St. Andrews, how have I do it right?

The Honourable, nothing or what?

Thank you!

 

[Artemisia]

If I want to write a letter to the Earl of Ulster or the Earl of St. Andrews, how have I do it right?

The Honourable, nothing or what?

Thank you!

Both Earl of St Andrews and Earl of Ulster hold their styles by courtesy, as elder sons of Dukes (their fathers being respectively the Duke of Kent and the Duke of Gloucester). The written form of address to the eldest son of a Duke is "My Lord", or "Lord Ulster/St Andrews". More informally, "Dear Lord Ulster/St Andrews" can be used. The name on the envelope should read The Earl of Ulster/St Andrews.

The form of address "The Right Honourable" in reference to an Earl would have been accurate if the Earls of Ulster and St Andrews had the titles in their own right; since their styles are by courtesy, it wouldn't be a suitable form of address. "Honourable" is used when addressing the daughters and younger sons of Earls, Viscounts, and Barons, as well as the latter's wives.

 

[king of scotland]

I have a quick question, if Prince Andrew had a son would his son use the title HRH The Earl of Inverness as a courtesy or would he just be HRH Prince X of York?

 

[Artemisia]

I have a quick question, if Prince Andrew had a son would his son use the title HRH The Earl of Inverness as a courtesy or would he just be HRH Prince X of York?

As with all first-born sons of a Peer, he would be entitled to use his father's secondary title as a courtesy style, and would as such be known as The Earl of Inverness. Of course, he would also be a Royal Highness and a British Prince as male-line grandson of the Sovereign.

If Andrew had more than one son, the younger ones would be known as "His Royal Highness Prince Name of York".

 

[LauraS3514]

As with all first-born sons of a Peer, he would be entitled to use his father's secondary title as a courtesy style, and would as such be known as The Earl of Inverness. Of course, he would also be a Royal Highness and a British Prince as male-line grandson of the Sovereign.

If Andrew had more than one son, the younger ones would be known as "His Royal Highness Prince Name of York".

Royal Princes in the UK do not use courtesy titles: any son of The Duke of York would be "HRH Prince X of York", just as The Prince of Wales was known as "HRH Prince Charles of Edinburgh" and not "The Earl of Merioneth" from his birth to his mother's accession. The heirs of TRH The Dukes of Gloucester and Kent use their fathers' second titles because they themselves are NOT royal.

 

[NGalitzine]

Royal Princes in the UK do not use courtesy titles: any son of The Duke of York would be "HRH Prince X of York", just as The Prince of Wales was known as "HRH Prince Charles of Edinburgh" and not "The Earl of Merioneth" from his birth to his mother's accession. The heirs of TRH The Dukes of Gloucester and Kent use their fathers' second titles because they themselves are NOT royal.

Exactly, and HRH Prince Edward of Kent never used the title of Earl of St Andrews and neither HRH Prince William of Gloucester or HRH Prince Richard of Gloucester ever used the title of Earl of Ulster. It is only the non HRH heirs use courtesy titles.
Andrews son would have been known as HRH Prince X of York.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Then how come James is known as Viscount Severn? Because he isn't known as Prince James?
As he is royal, he is a prince, but he's known by his father's courtesy title.

 

[purple_Lulu]

Then how come James is known as Viscount Severn? Because he isn't known as Prince James?
As he is royal, he is a prince, but he's known by his father's courtesy title.

It was announced at the time of the Earl & Countess of Wessex's marriage that their children would be styled as those of an earl, not as male-line grandchildren of a monarch (as is actually their right under George V's letters patent.) Hence Viscount Severn's older sister is Lady Louise Windsor (not Princess Louise) and James uses his father's courtesy title.

 

[Lumutqueen]

It was announced at the time of the Earl & Countess of Wessex's marriage that their children would be styled as those of an earl, not as male-line grandchildren of a monarch (as is actually their right under George V's letters patent.) Hence Viscount Severn's older sister is Lady Louise Windsor (not Princess Louise) and James uses his father's courtesy title.

I know that.
But James is still a Prince but he's known as Viscount Severn, so he contradicts both points made above.

 

[purple_Lulu]

I know that.
But James is still a Prince but he's known as Viscount Severn, so he contradicts both points made above.

They changed the rules. First time. He's a prince under his great-great-grandpapa's letters patent, but that's not being applied for him or his sister.

 

[purple_Lulu]

I suspect that if the Duke of York had married & produced children somewhat later than he actually did, then rather than our HRH Princess Beatrice, HRH Princess Eugenie and notional HRH Prince X, we would now have Lady Beatrice Windsor, Lady Eugenie Windsor and a notional Earl of Inverness.
But them again, I also suspect that the actual York marriage contributed to the subsequent downscaling we've seen demonstrated by the Wessex family, so it's all pure speculation how things might have been other than the actual reality we know.

 

[Artemisia]

Royal Princes in the UK do not use courtesy titles: any son of The Duke of York would be "HRH Prince X of York", just as The Prince of Wales was known as "HRH Prince Charles of Edinburgh" and not "The Earl of Merioneth" from his birth to his mother's accession. The heirs of TRH The Dukes of Gloucester and Kent use their fathers' second titles because they themselves are NOT royal.

I didn't know that; thank you for sharing.

They changed the rules. First time. He's a prince under his great-great-grandpapa's letters patent, but that's not being applied for him or his sister.

They didn't change the rules as such; the Letters Patent 1917 are still very much in force. Edward and Sophie may have chosen their children to be known as children of an Earl (as opposed to Royal Prince), but that doesn't change the fact that both James and Louise are legally Royal Highnesses, Prince and Princess of the United Kingdom. To counter that, new Letters Patent or Royal Proclamations need to be issued - and that hasn't been done so far.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The point is that you don't use both HRH Prince and the courtesy title of your father.

If James was using HRH Prince James he wouldn't be using the Viscount Severn title as well.

Because his parents, with The Queen's consent, have decided not to have their children known by the HRH Prince/Princess titles they are then styled from their father's titles.

If you go back to the last male-line grandchildren of Royal Dukes - Elizabeth and Margaret of York, William and Richard of Gloucester and Edward, Michael and Alexandra of Kent they were never referred to in relation to their father's Dukedoms but as HRH Prince/Princess of York, Gloucester and Kent. They were never known as Lady Elizabeth, Lady Margaret, Earl of Ulster, Lord Richard, Earl of St Andrews, Lord Michael or Lady Alexandra as well as HRH Prince/Princess.

Because they were HRH Prince/Princesses that is the only title they used.

Louise and James are different because the decision has been made to not use the royal titles. Given that the next question was - were they going to take the normal titles of the children of an Earl or were they going to not use titles at all? As the children of an Earl they use the styles of Viscount Severn and Lady Louise.

Whether the announcement in 1999 effectively overrode the 1917 LPs - as some people believe - or whether they are still Prince James and Princess Louise but the lower titles taken from their father only - is one open to debate and I am not going to get involved in a debate on that issue here.

 

[Molly2101]

As there was no LP issued at the time of Edward and Sophie's marriage, does it mean Louise and James could choose to be HRH on their 18th birthday? I highly doubt they would if this was an option, but I am just curious. I can understand the Wessex's decision to shield their children from the life of a Royal, but at the same time I am a bit disappointed that we cannot call them Princess Louise and Prince James as it is their legal title. Lady Louise Windsor does sound nice, especially when Mountbatten-Windsor is used, but I think Princess Louise sounds much nicer.

 

[Artemisia]

As there was no LP issued at the time of Edward and Sophie's marriage, does it mean Louise and James could choose to be HRH on their 18th birthday? I highly doubt they would if this was an option, but I am just curious. I can understand the Wessex's decision to shield their children from the life of a Royal, but at the same time I am a bit disappointed that we cannot call them Princess Louise and Prince James as it is their legal title. Lady Louise Windsor does sound nice, especially when Mountbatten-Windsor is used, but I think Princess Louise sounds much nicer.

Letters Patent of 1917 are still in force which means that James and Louise are legally Prince and Princess of the United Kingdom with the style of Royal Highness. Thus, Prince Edward's children do have the legal option to enjoy their rightful styles and titles once they reach the age of majority.

There are also some experts who believe that the press release issued by the Buckingham Palace in 1999 effectively deprived them of the title; they claim that the release was effectively expression of the Sovereign's will which is, in matters of royal titles and styles, law.

Most experts, however, believe that a mere press release doesn't have enough force to override a Letter Patent and that Prince Edward's children enjoy all the styles and titles they are entitled to as male-line grandchildren of the Monarch.

 

[Tsar bobo Iv]

do any of u think lady louise r her brother will used the title of duke and duchess of windsor
also do you think if diana was still alive her title would have been king mother

 

[major darling]

I really only think Elizabeth got that title due to the identical names, and the same title as HM the Queen..

 

[Artemisia]

do any of u think lady louise r her brother will used the title of duke and duchess of windsor

James and Louise are siblings, so they couldn't be Duke and Duchess of Windsor together.
It is extremely unlikely the Queen will give James a separate title of his own, independent of the one he is to inherit from his father, and it's virtually impossible in case of Louise. Thus, James will one day be the Earl of Wessex and Louise will still be Lady Louise. If Prince Edward inherits the Duchy of Edinburgh, as expected, James will in due course become the Duke of Edinburgh. Read this thread - The future of the Duke of Edinburgh title - for more information on that.

Moreover, it is highly unlikely any British Royal will in future be given the title of "Duke of Windsor" since it bears some extremely unpleasant memories the royals would rather forget.

also do you think if diana was still alive her title would have been king mother

I'm afraid not.
In Britain, there is, and has never been the title "King Mother".
If Charles and Diana hadn't divorced, and Diana was alive at the time of Charles' accession to the Throne, she would have become Queen Consort and when William became King, would have been Queen Mother. However, the moment Charles and Diana divorced, Diana lost the chance to become the Queen Mother; that title belongs to the mother of the King who had been a Queen Consort and Queen Dowager (in other words, the wife and widow of the previous Monarch).
If Diana were alive at the time of William's accession, she would be the king's mother, but not the Queen Mother.

Similarly, Queen Victoria's mother - Princess Victoria of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld - was the queen's mother, but never - The Queen Mother since her husband had never been King.

I really only think Elizabeth got that title due to the identical names, and the same title as HM the Queen..

More or less.
Queen Elizabeth (consort of George VI) became The Queen Mother the moment her daughter ascended to the Throne. That title automatically belongs to the widow of the King (Queen Dowager) who is also mother of the current Monarch. However, traditionally the different types of Queens - Queen Regnant (the Monarch), Queen Consort (the Monarch's wife), Queen Dowager (the Monarch's widow), and Queen Mother (the Monarch's widow and mother of the current Monarch) are only known as "Queen Name", without the addition of Consort, Regnant, Dowager or Mother.

Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother was indeed specifically known as "The Queen Mother" since she and her daughter shared the same first name; it would have otherwise been uncomfortable and confusing to have two Queens Elizabeth.

 

[NGalitzine]

do any of u think lady louise r her brother will used the title of duke and duchess of windsor

Why would they? It was already stated when Edward & Sophie married and he was created Earl of Wessex and Viscount Severn that when the current Duke of Edinburgh dies and the title eventually merges with the crown that Edward will be created Duke of Edinburgh.
There is a thread on this already which explains all the ins and outs of what can happen with the Edinburgh title.
I cannot envision the Duke of Windsor being recreated any time soon.

 

[Osipi]

do any of u think lady louise r her brother will used the title of duke and duchess of windsor

I don't see anybody being the Duke and Duchess of Windsor ever again. That title was created for Edward VIII when he abdicated the throne and is still a rather sore spot still in British history.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I agree - there is no way that the title Duke of Windsor will be resurrected during the present reign or then next one - both The Queen, who lived through it, and Charles have been raised by the Queen Mum and would have been instilled with how the Abdication killed her husband.

 

[Madame Royale]

I don't get the feeling it's still a sore point for many in Britain. Those who were adults at the time are all but dead and their children are themselves ageing and passing on so it's really only those who have some sense of sentimental attatchment to the period.

With each generation comes a natural and expected personal indifference to what was experienced at that time (A political crises it was, but it wasn't war afterall and the institution remained well guarded) as today's generations know know different to the current line and system. That's entirely normal.

The title itself is quite charming and what a shame it is that it is unlikely to be granted again given the nature of it's initital creation.

God bless Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth, but it wasn't so much the abdication that killed George VI, but poor health exacerbated by heavy smoking which no doubt lead to the formation of lung cancer and the development of Arteriosclerosis. She needed to rationalise his death and naturally the abdication was, in her mind, the cause. Stress would not have aided his health, but it was not the cause of his death. That alone rested with the King's own lifestyle choices.

The conflict which became WWII was not anticipated, let alone a certainty, at the time of George's succession (infact it was another two years before the military was called to arms), thus the Queen Mother's suggestion that it was the abdication which killed her husband is most certainly irrational.