Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Ish]

Are we likely to ever see the husband's of Princesses being given the title of Prince like in Sweden? The titles system in this country is still outdated and sexist to both genders.

Asides from Daniel - who is a special case - which husbands of Swedish princesses have been made Princes of Sweden?

Daniel was made a Prince because he married the heir apparent. The last time the heir to the British throne was a woman was 60+ years ago, and when she married her husband was granted an HRH and a dukedom by the then king, to be later created a British Prince by his wife during her reign.

Since then only 3 British princesses have married (to 4 men). Two of the husbands were reportedly offered peerages that were then turned down - the individuals didn't want titles. One was offered and took an earldom, but given as the marriage happened in the 60s and to someone who wasn't the best of royals, I can see why no one jumped to make him a Prince. The most recent one wasn't offered any title.

For all, especially the first two, being royal would have impacted their abilities to continue on with their private lives and private careers - especially given as they married at times when there was a shortage of working royals. For Anne's husbands this would have been less of an issue as they had military careers, but I don't think either of them wanted titles at all.

Now, the Queen has two granddaughters whose husbands could be granted titles if and when they marry - neither even being engage yet. Somehow, regardless of gender equality, I don't think people will react well if the Yorks marry and their husbands become Princes, especially as it's often assumed that Charles will strip them of their titles once he's king.

 

[Rocketmom]

A while back there was discussion that Kate would have to curtsey to Beatrice and Eugenie because she wasn't born royal. It occurred to me that Camilla wasn't born royal either. Does she also have to curtsey to the York girls? (Personally, it seems to me that people should only curtsey to the Queen and no one else. But that's just me.)

 

[Ish]

A while back there was discussion that Kate would have to curtsey to Beatrice and Eugenie because she wasn't born royal. It occurred to me that Camilla wasn't born royal either. Does she also have to curtsey to the York girls? (Personally, it seems to me that people should only curtsey to the Queen and no one else. But that's just me.)

I'm not sure I actually believe this story, as it doesn't seem that the family bows/curtsey to each other unless they're doing so to the Queen or DoE.

The order of precedent puts Camilla beneath Anne in terms of who gets to enter first - if Camilla attends something without Charles that Anne happens to be at, then Anne enters first. I believe this would also apply to Sophie - she comes after Anne - but I'm not certain.

Likewise, the Queen's royal granddaughters come before her royal granddaughter-in-law. If Kate attends something without William but with Beatrice, then she's expected to enter afterwards.

In the days when royals bowed and curtseyed to each other (within their own family) more, then all of this would mean that Camilla would be expected to curtsey to Anne, and Kate to Beatrice, but that's a behaviour of old that we don't really see anymore.

 

[Skippyboo]

Most of the time it doesn't seem like they even use the order of precedence. Supposedly grandsons of the sovereign are behind younger sons but William and Harry are ahead of their uncles. The closing ceremony for the Olympics- it was Harry, Kate and Anne in the next row which doesn't make sense at all.

 

[Iluvbertie]

We don't see the private precedence of course, because it is exactly that - private and so out of the public gaze.

We don't see how they behave to each other on public occasions a lot of the time because they have already met up before we see them as well so again can't judge.

At the Closing Ceremony of the Olympics Harry took precedence because he was officially representing The Queen and thus took her position.

Other times we see them William and Harry are usually with their father when their uncles are also present and so take their precedence from being their father's sons.

We don't tend to see them with at an official function with just say Andrew or Edward - which is when the precedence would come into effect.

 

[Spheno]

Most of the time it doesn't seem like they even use the order of precedence.

They use the order of precedence very often.
In fact the order of precedence says how other people should behave if there are several royals around.
The order of precedence says how to arrange a place setting for a dinner with royals, how to introduce other guests or employees during royal visit and so on.
Look at the Dutch Investiture. They used the royal order of precedence at least 3 times. But do you notice it?

 

[Skippyboo]

We don't see the private precedence of course, because it is exactly that - private and so out of the public gaze.

We don't see how they behave to each other on public occasions a lot of the time because they have already met up before we see them as well so again can't judge.

At the Closing Ceremony of the Olympics Harry took precedence because he was officially representing The Queen and thus took her position.

Other times we see them William and Harry are usually with their father when their uncles are also present and so take their precedence from being their father's sons.

We don't tend to see them with at an official function with just say Andrew or Edward - which is when the precedence would come into effect.

We did see them at a official function without their father but with their uncles present. Remembrance Day 2013. Charles was in India. The wreath laying went Queen, Philip,Harry who was standing in for his dad, William, Andrew, Edward, Anne....

 

[Iluvbertie]

Harry was there 'representing Charles' and so took Charles' precedence and as Harry took Charles' precedence William took his precedence from being Charles' son, as if Charles was there.

Had neither William nor Harry been there representing Charles then Charles' position in the precedence would have been removed and we would have seen things differently but with Harry representing Charles they both took their precedence as if they were with Charles.

 

[EllieCat]

We don't tend to see them with at an official function with just say Andrew or Edward - which is when the precedence would come into effect.

I remember a couple of years ago – and can't remember the context but it was an official thing, when Prince Edward and Sophie sat next to the Queen, and William and Kate were to the side (Prince Charles was not there).

 

[AdmirerUS]

Harry was there 'representing Charles' and so took Charles' precedence and as Harry took Charles' precedence William took his precedence from being Charles' son, as if Charles was there.

Had neither William nor Harry been there representing Charles then Charles' position in the precedence would have been removed and we would have seen things differently but with Harry representing Charles they both took their precedence as if they were with Charles.

Thank you Iluvbertie - I would nave never thought of this.
The image of having a discussion with my brother to get precedence straight before we enter a function is inconceivable.

 

[branchg]

The Dukedom will one day pass down to James, and then to his children, and so on.

The thing with royal dukedoms is that unless they're granted to the heir or the heir's heir then they're expected to one day cease to be royal. Currently, the heir apparents to the Dukedoms of Kent and Gloucester are not royals, meaning when the current dukes die they will cease to be royal dukedoms.

This will also happen with the Dukedom of Edinburgh. It will be a royal dukedom under Edward, a quasi-royal dukedom under James (likely he will not receive any CC recognition for his activities), and then will cease to be a royal dukedom at all with James' son. The organizations connected with the dukedom will continue, but will cease to have their royal connections (unless they take on a royal patron, which I could see as being likely).

They will always be "of the blood royal" even when the holder is not HRH as they were originally created for sons of The Sovereign (or in Philip's case for the future consort of a Sovereign) and passed in the male-line to his descendants. When and if they cease to be extant, they are only recreated for members of the royal family.

 

[Alison H]

It's a hereditary title, so it'll pass to James, in the same way that the present Dukes of Kent and Gloucester are fairly minor royals. It somehow hadn't been an issue for years before then, because titles kept dying out - the previous Duke of Edinburgh (Queen Victoria's son Alfred) had no surviving sons, his brother the Duke of Connaught had no grandsons in the male line, and the various Hanoverian dukes kept failing to produce sons by recognised wives. There've been loads of Dukes of York but they've all either become king or had no surviving sons. I can't see James becoming a full-time working royal because of the title, though.

 

[Spheno]

They will always be "of the blood royal" even when the holder is not HRH as they were originally created for sons of The Sovereign (or in Philip's case for the future consort of a Sovereign) and passed in the male-line to his descendants. When and if they cease to be extant, they are only recreated for members of the royal family.

there is no such thing as "duke of the blood royal"

 

[Rudolph]

Harry was there 'representing Charles' and so took Charles' precedence and as Harry took Charles' precedence William took his precedence from being Charles' son, as if Charles was there.

Had neither William nor Harry been there representing Charles then Charles' position in the precedence would have been removed and we would have seen things differently but with Harry representing Charles they both took their precedence as if they were with Charles.

I'm confused. I thought Royals take their precedence only from the Sovereign.

If we're saying William and Harry take their precedence from Charles, this would still put Andrew and Edward ahead of them as they're taking their precedence as male children of the Sovereign.

The only conclusion I can come to is William both officially and unofficially takes precedence over his uncles.

During Remembrance Day , when Charles is absent William lays his wreath after the Duke of Edinburgh. He did this in 2011 or 12, doesn't this show for whatever reasons, Andrew and Edward come after William?

 

[Ish]

there is no such thing as "duke of the blood royal"

I think what branchg meant was that the peerage "Duke of Edinburgh" is one that is only created for royals - like the Dukes of York, Kent, Cambridge, etc.

This is true. If, after Edward's male-line dies out, the dukedom becomes extinct once again (or if at some point in the future it merges with the crown again) then the title will only be recreated for another royal. That doesn't mean that when James' hypothetical son holds the title he'll be royal in any way.

Regardless of the "royal" usage of certain titles, though, it isn't likely that any title other than a life peerage baron - one reserved for the use of royals or not - is going to be conferred on anyone who isn't a royal.

 

[Ish]

I'm confused. I thought Royals take their precedence only from the Sovereign.

If we're saying William and Harry take their precedence from Charles, this would still put Andrew and Edward ahead of them as they're taking their precedence as male children of the Sovereign.

The only conclusion I can come to is William both officially and unofficially takes precedence over his uncles.

During Remembrance Day , when Charles is absent William lays his wreath after the Duke of Edinburgh. He did this in 2011 or 12, doesn't this show for whatever reasons, Andrew and Edward come after William?

I believe that while officially William's precedence should be after his uncles, in practice we're seeing him take precedence before them more as he's in the direct line. Harry's precedence is still after them, but I think when he's with his father, filling in for his father, or even possibly with his brother, he might be bumped up.

 

[Molly2101]

I remember a couple of years ago – and can't remember the context but it was an official thing, when Prince Edward and Sophie sat next to the Queen, and William and Kate were to the side (Prince Charles was not there).

That happened at the opening ceremony of the Paralympics in London 2012, but I think that was mainly because Edward was Patron of the Paralympics.

 

[branchg]

I'm confused. I thought Royals take their precedence only from the Sovereign.

If we're saying William and Harry take their precedence from Charles, this would still put Andrew and Edward ahead of them as they're taking their precedence as male children of the Sovereign.

The only conclusion I can come to is William both officially and unofficially takes precedence over his uncles.

During Remembrance Day , when Charles is absent William lays his wreath after the Duke of Edinburgh. He did this in 2011 or 12, doesn't this show for whatever reasons, Andrew and Edward come after William?

William takes his precedence from his father. If he is representing his father or The Queen, he would take precedence ahead of his uncles. Precedence also depends on who is present at the event.

 

[Osipi]

William takes his precedence from his father. If he is representing his father or The Queen, he would take precedence ahead of his uncles. Precedence also depends on who is present at the event.

This is an interesting discussion. I've always thought that after HM and the DoE, the senior line of the House of Windsor (heirs) would follow (Charles, Camilla, William/Kate, Harry) followed by the junior lines of the House of Windsor which would be Andrew and girls, then Edward and his family and then Anne and family.

I think I'd go bonkers if I really had to know exactly how the precedence works, which precedence is called for and who's standing in for who. Complicated game of follow the leader if you ask me.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Precedence is not the same as the line of succession. It is determined by the relationship of the person to the monarch - so children of the monarch come ahead of the grandchildren of the monarch.

In the situations we have seen listed here that seem to challenge that we need to remember that:

at the Remembrance Service Harry was representing Charles so precedence was determined as if Charles was there - so Harry took Charles' place and William took his precedence from being Charles' son as Charles' place was filled.

at the Paralympics Edward took his place due to his position with the Paralympic Organisation itself rather than as a younger son of the monarch.

at the closing ceremony of the Olympics - Harry took precedence over everyone else as he formally represented HM The Queen and so was in her place

 

[Rudolph]

I just went back and looked at the video from Remembrance Day 2012 when Charles was in NZ and William places his wreath at the Cenotaph ahead of Andrew and Edward.

This is an example of precedence right?

 

[btsnyder]

Titles: Out with the Old, in with the New?

I've been wondering about this lately: What happens to old titles when new ones are assumed? For example, when the Prince of Wales becomes king, I assume the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge will automatically become the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall. Does that mean that, at that moment, the Duke's current titles (Cambridge, Strathearn, Carickfergus) will become extinct and/or merge back into the crown? The same question for the Earl and Countess of Wessex: when the Earl assumes the Dukedom of Edinburgh, will all of his current titles be discarded or will be still hold them? Will Viscount Severn's courtesy title become, say, the Earl of Merioneth (one of the Dukedom's subsidiary titles?)

 

[Skippyboo]

William's Cambridge titles will merge with the Crown when he becomes King and then can be issued again. The Duke of Cornwall is just for the eldest son of the monarch so it will go from Charles to William and then to George.

As for Edward, when Philip dies Charles inherits the Edinburgh titles and upon his accession to the throne when the Queen dies, all of Charles titles not tied to being heir apparent (which are then William's) are merged with the Crown. He could then issue LP for Edward to become Duke of Edinburgh. He doesn't have to give him secondary titles because Edward would retain his Earl of Wessex and Viscount Severn titles.

 

[Osipi]

I've been wondering about this lately: What happens to old titles when new ones are assumed? For example, when the Prince of Wales becomes king, I assume the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge will automatically become the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall. Does that mean that, at that moment, the Duke's current titles (Cambridge, Strathearn, Carickfergus) will become extinct and/or merge back into the crown? The same question for the Earl and Countess of Wessex: when the Earl assumes the Dukedom of Edinburgh, will all of his current titles be discarded or will be still hold them? Will Viscount Severn's courtesy title become, say, the Earl of Merioneth (one of the Dukedom's subsidiary titles?)

I believe that when Charles becomes King, William will become the Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge along with the other titles that go with the dukedoms. I'm sure that some of our more knowledgeable members of this forum can explain it more in depth than I can.

 

[Charlotte_Aster]

At the event of the QEII's demise, Charles will automatically become King and William will be HRH the Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge, until he is created the Prince of Wales. THen he will use his superior title. He will retain his subsidiary titles.
The titles merge with the Crown when a) he wears the Crown, b) if the titleholder were to die without having an issue (which is not the situation here, as were PWilliam to die (God forbid) his son will inherit his Dukedom of Cambridge and other titles, except for "Duke of Cornwall" and "Prince of Wales".

In order for the Earl of Wessex to be Duke of Edinburgh, the current Duke must die, his title must merge with the Crown. After that it is the sovereign's grace that will/can bestow the title.

There's also another thread regarding the titles of Wessex:
http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f114/titles-of-the-wessex-children-13729-9.html#post1651580

About the Duke of Edinburgh title:
http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/the-future-of-the-duke-of-edinburgh-title-24343.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_of_Edinburgh#Future_Dukes

 

[Skippyboo]

George could be named Prince of Wales if some thing happened to William before William became King. George would be Charles's Heir Apparent and eligible for the PoW title. He wouldn't be Duke of Cornwall since he isn't the eldest son of the sovereign.

 

[Danish girl]

Would P Harry be Duke of Cornwall then, or would that title only be used again when George is king and have a son?

 

[cepe]

Would P Harry be Duke of Cornwall then, or would that title only be used again when George is king and have a son?

Only the eldest son of the Monarch who is also heir to the throne can be Duke of Cornwall.

So when William becomes King, George will become Duke of Cornwall.

The title does not go to the eldest daughter who is heir to the throne, ie HMQ was never Duke (Duchess) of Cornwall.

 

[Danish girl]

I meant Would P Harry be Duke of Cornwall if P William had died, or would that title only be used again when George is king and have a son?

But I guess if he needed to be the heir as well, P Harry would only be Duke of Cornwall if something horrible happened and both P William and P George died...

 

[Ish]

Titles merge with a crown only when the person holding them becomes the monarch. Therefore, when Charles becomes King then all the titles he holds now will merge with the crown.

Titles become extinct when the holder dies without heirs. Therefore, if Charles were to die without becoming King then the title "Duke of Cornwall" would become extinct as there is no heir to it (as the conditions for the title don't allow there to be a heir).

When William becomes Duke of Cornwall he will still be Duke of Cambridge - his full title then will be Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge (Cornwall coming first because it is the elder title). Likewise, if Edward is created Duke of Edinburgh as is expected, he'll still be Earl of Wessex, that'll just become a subsidiary title (which in turn, will likely be the title that James uses).