Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Somebody]

HMQ, as 'Fount of honours' has the authority to make the requisite changes... If negotiations were conducted [privately] with the Earls of Ulster and St Andrews, [and the reasoning behind the proposed changes explained], i'm sure agreement could be reached.
Neither Gentlemen have the 'state' usually associated with Dukedoms, no vast estate, no 'seat', no notable collection, or Art [beyond the jewels likely to be dispersed when their fathers die].
They and their descent must make their 'own way in the World', and a Ducal title is likely to be more a hindrance than a help with that..
If an agreement isn't possible, so be it...

But why would she? She hasn't started such conversations with the German cousins who never actually used the ducal titles (at least that we know of). These gentlemen have been titled as the heir of their father's respective dukedoms from birth (and I don't think becoming a non-royal duke will make their lives that much harder, they are already titled), and if other ducal titles aren't revoked (what would be the requirement to keep a ducal title; have enough money? Degrees of sanguinity to the monarch: very few degrees: title, few more degrees: no title, many more degrees: keep title - sounds all very arbitrary and like opening a can of worms) it reflects very badly on them.

Furthermore, other members have explained that each and every heir would have to agree for a ducal title to be returned and there are quite a few children who wouldn't be able to make such a decision, so that also seems to complicate matters. They need only one of them to not agree and it cannot go through, so I don't see a reason at all for the queen or future kings to go this route.

Nonetheless, interesting to consider all kinds of scenarios

 

[wyevale]

I don't see a reason at all for the queen or future kings to go this route.

The dire shortage of Dukedoms available to future Monarchs.. Sussex [gone], Edinburgh [gone], Gloucester [gone], Kent [gone], the German lot [gone], leaving only Clarence and York..
Two [younger] sons to George takes care of them, and what then ? New creations.. 'Duke of Milton-Keynes' perhaps ?

 

[Gawin]

Charlotte will get the title of Princess Royal when it is available.

Succession to the Crown may be gender neutral now, but succession to titles in the peerage of the UK is not. Most titles can be inherited only by male descendants in paternal line. The reason for that is not gender discrimination per se, but rather to keep the title in the same family, whose name is recorded patrilineally. If the UK allowed children to take their mother's family name as their last name, as some countries like Belgium and Sweden now do, then I think a major obstacle to gender neutral succession in the peerage would be removed.
.

Male-only inheritance of peerage titles is definitely gender discrimination. It has nothing to do with surnames. Surnames can be changed. Just ask the Windsors and the Mountbattens. The Crown also has the right to issue a special remainder allowing female succession. Again, ask the Mountbattens. Titles can also be granted as life peerages that die with the holder.

I honestly can't see the BRF following the current (and in my view antiquated) practices regarding titles in 30 years times. Quite frankly I can't even see gender-rights advocate Meghan being happy if her sons can succeed Harry as Duke of Whatever but her daughters can't.

I personally think the BRF should either (1) give life titles to ALL the monarch's children which can't be inherited by their own children, or (2) give a title to the oldest son/daughter (heir) but not the younger children. And women who marry into the RF should be referred to by their own names not their husband's. Princess Marie-Christine NOT Princess Michael.

 

[Denville]

The dire shortage of Dukedoms available to future Monarchs.. Sussex [gone], Edinburgh [gone], Gloucester [gone], Kent [gone], the German lot [gone], leaving only Clarence and York..
Two [younger] sons to George takes care of them, and what then ? New creations.. 'Duke of Milton-Keynes' perhaps ?

There's nothing to stop the RF from choosing other titles, which have a historical royal connextion. It would be impossible to impose this retrospectively.. and ther'es no need.

 

[wyevale]

choosing other titles, which have a historical royal connextion

Examples please ?

 

[Gawin]

But why would she? She hasn't started such conversations with the German cousins who never actually used the ducal titles (at least that we know of). These gentlemen have been titled as the heir of their father's respective dukedoms from birth (and I don't think becoming a non-royal duke will make their lives that much harder, they are already titled), and if other ducal titles aren't revoked (what would be the requirement to keep a ducal title; have enough money? Degrees of sanguinity to the monarch: very few degrees: title, few more degrees: no title, many more degrees: keep title - sounds all very arbitrary and like opening a can of worms) it reflects very badly on them.

Furthermore, other members have explained that each and every heir would have to agree for a ducal title to be returned and there are quite a few children who wouldn't be able to make such a decision, so that also seems to complicate matters. They need only one of them to not agree and it cannot go through, so I don't see a reason at all for the queen or future kings to go this route.

Nonetheless, interesting to consider all kinds of scenarios

I agree. I think the Queen is sensible enough to realize that attitudes regarding titles might be very different thirty years from now so why rock the boat by attempting to regain titles that have already been handed out?

I also doubt the lack of available traditional titles will be considered "dire" by the time William's children have grown to adulthood. The BRF has survived by evolving and will continue to evolve.

 

[Stefan]

I've been pondering the number [or lack of] Royal Ducal Titles available in the future...
We know that Edinburgh and Cambridge will 'revert' at some point, but Edinburgh will be re-created for the Earl of Wessex.
Sussex is likely to be awarded in May.. and [unless the 'Harkles' are childless] it eventually becomes an 'un-royal' Dukedom..
That leaves JUST Cambridge for the future..

There is also Clarence (if it is not given to Harry in May) and York will most likely also become extinct when Andrew passes.

So then Clarence, Cambridge and York would be avalible at some point.

 

[Mbruno]

Male-only inheritance of peerage titles is definitely gender discrimination. It has nothing to do with surnames. Surnames can be changed. Just ask the Windsors and the Mountbattens. The Crown also has the right to issue a special remainder allowing female succession. Again, ask the Mountbattens. Titles can also be granted as life peerages that die with the holder.

I honestly can't see the BRF following the current (and in my view antiquated) practices regarding titles in 30 years times. Quite frankly I can't even see gender-rights advocate Meghan being happy if her sons can succeed Harry as Duke of Whatever but her daughters can't.

I personally think the BRF should either (1) give life titles to ALL the monarch's children which can't be inherited by their own children, or (2) give a title to the oldest son/daughter (heir) but not the younger children. And women who marry into the RF should be referred to by their own names not their husband's. Princess Marie-Christine NOT Princess Michael.

Referring to them by their own names would signify that they are princesses in their own right, which is not the case.

 

[Gawin]

Referring to them by their own names would signify that they are princesses in their own right, which is not the case.

Princess Marie of Denmark isn't a princess in her own right. Neither are Princess Claire of Belgium, Princess Mabel of Orange-Nassau, Princess Laurentien of the Netherlands, or Princess Sibilla of Luxembourg, or Princess Claire of Luxembourg.

Rules for titles are not written in stone.

 

[Osipi]

The UK is its own entity though and does not follow the rules of the monarchy of other countries and their title structure.

 

[Rudolph]

Plenty of women keep their names after marriage. Legally there is no difference between Princess Henry and Princess Meghan.

It’s just at court The Queen prefers the old common law tradition of a wife taking her husbands name.

Charles may choose to do it differently.

Peerages are a little different because they are only granted on the advice of minsters.

It’s only members of the royal family granted hereditary peerages. The vast majority are life peers.

 

[Gawin]

The UK is its own entity though and does not follow the rules of the monarchy of other countries and their title structure.

But the rules can be changed. As I stated they aren't written in stone. For example, the Queen issued Letters Patent ("changed the rules") in order to allow George and Charlotte to be HRHs and not HHs.

If rules can't be changed we wouldn't be discussing titles for Harry or William's children in the first place. We'd be discussing titles for the children of the Hereditary Princess of Liechtenstein. Because if rules can't be changed the Act of Settlement would never have been passed.

 

[Mbruno]

Princess Marie of Denmark isn't a princess in her own right. Neither are Princess Claire of Belgium, Princess Mabel of Orange-Nassau, Princess Laurentien of the Netherlands, or Princess Sibilla of Luxembourg, or Princess Claire of Luxembourg.

Rules for titles are not written in stone.

Both Princess Claire and Queen Mathilde were actually created Princesses of Belgium in their own right by royal decree and that is why they were referred to by their own names. Lili, who is not a princess in her own right, is called 'Princess Amedeo'.

I don't really know the legal situation of the consorts of Swedish and Danish princes, as Scandinavian titles apparently are not regulated by law or royal decree as in Belgium, Spain or the Netherlands, and seem to be determined arbitrarily by the Royal House itself. I would assume, however, that it is implied in those countries that, upon marrying into the RF, spouses automatically become princesses in their own right as it used to be the case in Belgium before King Baudouin changed that by royal decree in 1991.

The Netherlands is actually the only exception in your examples. Indeed, Laurentien and Mabel are not princesses in their own right, although Máxima was and actually still is (like Mathilde). I don't know why all three were referred to by their own names when their legal status was different.

But the rules can be changed. As I stated they aren't written in stone. For example, the Queen issued Letters Patent ("changed the rules") in order to allow George and Charlotte to be HRHs and not HHs.

Under the previous LPs, George would be an HRH anyway as he is the eldest son of the eldest living son of the PoW; Charlotte would not be a princess and would have been styled Lady Charlotte Mountbatten-Windsor instead. None of them would be HHs though; the HH style has not been used by any member of the BRF born after 1917, I suppose.


PS: It is worth noting that in Denmark, spouses of princes in the line of succession do not exactly take the title of their husbands as the husband is a Prins til Denmark whereas the wife is a Prinsesse af Denmark. That was actually the case also in the past in Sweden where a prince who was a dynast (other than the Crown Prince) was an Arvfurste, but his wife was not an Arvfurstinna, but rather a Sveriges Prinsessa, suggesting a title in her own right.

 

[Stefan]

Princess Marie of Denmark isn't a princess in her own right. Neither are Princess Claire of Belgium, Princess Mabel of Orange-Nassau, Princess Laurentien of the Netherlands, or Princess Sibilla of Luxembourg, or Princess Claire of Luxembourg.

Rules for titles are not written in stone.

Actually Princess Claire of Belgium is Princess of Belgim in her own right as is Queen Mathilde. In Belgium the Title has to be conferred upon the woman who marry into the Royal Family.

 

[Rudolph]

Another note on life peers. They only hold the rank of Baron so creating life peerages for members of the BRF wouldn’t really be right imo

 

[Gawin]

Both Princess Claire and Queen Mathilde were actually created Princesses of Belgium in their own right by royal decree and that is why they were referred to by their own names. Lili, who is not a princess in her own right, is called 'Princess Amedeo'.

I don't really know what the legal situation of the consorts of Swedish and Danish princes is as Scandinavian titles apparently are not regulated by law or royal decree as in Belgium, Spain or the Netherlands, and seem to be determined arbitrarily by the Royal House itself. I would assume, however, that it is implied in those countries that, upon marrying into the RF, spouses automatically become princesses in their own right as it used to be the case in Belgium before King Baudouin changed that by royal decree in 1991.

The Netherlands is actually the only exception in your examples. Indeed, Laurentien and Mabel are not princesses in their own right, although Máxima was and actually still is (like Mathilde). I don't know why all three were referred to by their own names when their legal status was different.

I didn't know all of this, thank you for pointing it out.

It seems to me that the current practice of referring to women by their husband's given names is outdated, princesses in their own right or not. I cringe every time I hear Princess Marie-Christine referred to as Princess Michael, as if she doesn't have a name of her own.

At one time, at least in the United States, it was the practice to refer to women by their husband's names (Mrs. Donald Trump) but that practice has largely been abandoned (Melania Trump). In my view it's a change for the better and the BRF should evolve with the times as well.

 

[Gawin]

Another note on life peers. They only hold the rank of Baron so creating life peerages for members of the BRF wouldn’t really be right imo

Yes, but rules can be changed!!!!! Princesses are no longer superseded in the line of succession by younger brothers! William's children are HRHs not HHs! Patricia Mountbatten inherited her father's earldom! Elizabeth II is the monarch not Franz of Bavaria!

 

[Rudolph]

Yes, but rules can be changed!!!!! Princesses are no longer superseded in the line of succession by younger brothers! William's children are HRHs not HHs! Patricia Mountbatten inherited her father's earldom! Elizabeth II is the monarch not Franz of Bavaria!

You’re right the rules can be changed but in the case of peerages it requires parliament to make the changes.

The matter of styling wives of princes by their Christian names can be done by the sovereign. Royal styles and titles are a matter for the monarch.

Charles may well go that route.

 

[Countessmeout]

You’re right the rules can be changed but in the case of peerages it requires parliament to make the changes.

The matter of styling wives of princes by their Christian names can be done by the sovereign. Royal styles and titles are a matter for the monarch.

Charles may well go that route.

Only if we are talking old titles and changing their succession.

If we are talking new titles, titles for Harry and eventually the kids of William, it doesn't require parliament. The letters pattent state who inherits the title. As in the case of the Earl of Burma, its possible for the queen to allow for female inheritance. There are actual peerages out there which do allow for female inheritance, several which are currently held by females.

Maybe they need to take a page from Scotland, as the Scottish peerages are where we find women with the right to inherit some titles. Takes Lord Herries of Terregles.It used to be a subsidiary title of the Duke of Norfolk. But unlike Norfolk, Herries was governed by Scottish rules. When the 16th duke died, the duchy passed to his second cousin (the father of the current duke), but Herries passed to his eldest daughter. It his youngest daughter, the current Marchioness of Lothian, who holds the title now. And the heir presumptive is her daughter Lady Clare Kerr (the marchioness and her husband have no sons, so her husband's title will pass to his younger brother, but her daughters are heir to her title.)

Another example is the chief of Clan Fraser, Lord of Saltoun. It is male preference inheritance and the current holder and heir are both women.

 

[Ish]

The dire shortage of Dukedoms available to future Monarchs.. Sussex [gone], Edinburgh [gone], Gloucester [gone], Kent [gone], the German lot [gone], leaving only Clarence and York..
Two [younger] sons to George takes care of them, and what then ? New creations.. 'Duke of Milton-Keynes' perhaps ?

A thing to remember is that the only reason why these titles are ones we associate with the Royal Family so closely is because of fluke. They've never been created with the intention of going extinct, but rather circumstance has caused them to either merge with the crown or go extinct within two generations - between Edward II and Queen Victoria, there have only been 3 titles created for a member of the Royal family to last past 2 generations (the initial creation of York, which later merged with the Crown, and the creations of Cumberland & Teviotdale and Albany, which are still technically extant. The only difference between the creations of Kent and Gloucester now than the creations during previous reigns is that these ones aren't dying out.

Currently, Clarence, Kendal, Sussex, and Avondale are all available, and Cambridge, Strathearn, and St Andrews are all likely to be available by William's reign. There's also the Scottish dukedoms of Ross, Kintyre, and Lorne which all have royal connections and are currently available.

 

[Rudolph]

The remainder to William’s dukedom is ‘heirs males’ but yes a peerage for Harry could include the remainder ‘heirs female’ or ‘heirs general’ although The Queen seems to be old school.

Changes wil come under Charles, not The Queen.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

Currently, Clarence, Kendal, Sussex, and Avondale are all available, and Cambridge, Strathearn, and St Andrews are all likely to be available by William's reign. There's also the Scottish dukedoms of Ross, Kintyre, and Lorne which all have royal connections and are currently available.

St. Andrews? Lord Downpatrick will use the Earl of St Andrews title when his grandfather passes and his father becomes Duke of Kent. Or is there a different St Andrews title?

 

[Ish]

HMQ, as 'Fount of honours' has the authority to make the requisite changes... If negotiations were conducted [privately] with the Earls of Ulster and St Andrews, [and the reasoning behind the proposed changes explained], i'm sure agreement could be reached.
Neither Gentlemen have the 'state' usually associated with Dukedoms, no vast estate, no 'seat', no notable collection, or Art [beyond the jewels likely to be dispersed when their fathers die].
They and their descent must make their 'own way in the World', and a Ducal title is likely to be more a hindrance than a help with that..
If an agreement isn't possible, so be it...

The Queen doesn't have this power. She can't simply revoke titles that have already been granted - in order to do so, Parliament has to intervene and pass legislature, and even that isn't that clear cut - look at the state of the titles Duke of Cumberland and Teviotdale and Duke of Albany - both of which were revoked by Parliament during WWI, but are still considered to be extant and open to be claimed by their heirs today.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Following the Belgian and Dutch definition of "princess in her own right", the British consorts would be considered to be princesses in their own right, for the reason that they are princesses on a legal level.

I believe the British practice of styling royal wives by their husbands' first names was a change carried out by the Hanoverians. Queen Anne was styled Princess Anne of Denmark, not Princess George of Denmark, prior to becoming Queen of England, Scotland, and Ireland.

Whereas it has pleased Almighty God to call to His Mercy Our late Sovereign Lord King William the Third of Blessed Memory, by whose Decease, the Imperial Crowns of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland, are Solely and Rightfully come to the High and Mighty Princess Anne of Denmark; We therefore, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal of this Realm, being here assisted with those of His late Majesty's Privy Council, with numbers of other Principal Gentlemen of Quality, with the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of London, do now hereby with One full Voice and Consent of Tongue and Heart, Publish and Proclaim, That the High and Mighty Princess ANNE is now by the death of our late Sovereign, of Happy Memory, become our only Lawful and Rightful Liege Lady Anne, by the Grace of God, Queen of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, &c. To whom we do acknowledge all Faith and Constant Obedience, with all hearty and humble Affection: Beseeching God, by whom Kings and Queens do Reign, to Bless the Royal Queen Anne with long and happy years to Reign over us.

Given at the Court at St. James's, the Eighth Day of March, 1701.

God Save Queen ANNE.

Proclamations of Accessions of British Sovereigns (1547-1952)



As side notes:

In Belgium, as Mbruno pointed out, Countess Mathilde d'Udekem d'Acoz and Claire Coombs are Princess of Belgium in their own right, whereas Lili Rosboch von Wolkenstein is not. It is unclear if Lili is a princess per se in her own right, as she has been styled, by the court of Belgium, as Princess Amedeo of Belgium and Princess Elisabetta (but, conspicuously, never as Princess Elisabetta of Belgium). http://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...elgian-royal-family-38975-10.html#post1985002

In Luxembourg, the wives of the sons and the agnatic male heirs of the head of the house are automatically princesses in their own right, provided that the marriage is in conformity with the house law of 2012. Luxarazzi: Family Bylaws Concerning the House Law of the House of Luxembourg-Nassau

 

[Somebody]

The dire shortage of Dukedoms available to future Monarchs.. Sussex [gone], Edinburgh [gone], Gloucester [gone], Kent [gone], the German lot [gone], leaving only Clarence and York..
Two [younger] sons to George takes care of them, and what then ? New creations.. 'Duke of Milton-Keynes' perhaps ?

Glad that you at least acknowledge that there are other titles than Cambridge as you suggested earlier, so we at least have Clarence, York, Cambridge (next to Sussex). Other titles that could be reused have been discussed (Victoria created many double dukedoms, I don't expect that to happen again, so those second dukefoms could easily be introduced as primary dukedom0; and there is the option to create new ducal titles - which especially might be appropriate for the younger bunch if the monarchs has several sons. So far, quite a few dukedoms have returned to the crown. York will return aftr one generation. If James doesn't have any sons Edinburgh might be back in 2 generations, Gloucester also depends on 1 in each generation so could easily end. The only one that seems lost for the royal family is Kent.

As families are smaller these days; as long as peerages are restricted to male heirs chances are that several dukedoms return to the crown within the first few generations. So, again, it doesn't seem to be a very pressing issue and certainly not one that requires retrospective actions.

 

[Mbruno]

Following the Belgian and Dutch definition of "princess in her own right", the British consorts would be considered to be princesses in their own right, for the reason that they are princesses on a legal level.

I believe the British practice of styling royal wives by their husbands' first names was a change carried out by the Hanoverians. Queen Anne was styled Princess Anne of Denmark, not Princess George of Denmark, prior to becoming Queen of England, Scotland, and Ireland.

Queen Anne was called Princess Anne of Denmark because I suppose that was her title in Denmark. In other words, it was a Danish title, not a British one, and therefore governed by Danish rules rather than British rules. As a matter of fact, the title of "princess" was not normally used in England to refer to a monarch's daughter prior to the Hanoverians. Queen Mary I and Queen Elizabeth I for example were simply called "Lady Mary" and "Lady Elizabeth" prior to their accession to the throne. The Stuarts introduced the title of Princess Royal for the monarch's eldest daughter (based on its French equivalent Madame Royale), but, if I understand it correctly, it was only under the Hanoverians that the children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren in male line of the British Sovereign were automatically titled "Prince or Princess of Great Britain and Ireland" and styled "Royal Highness" (in the case of children and grandchildren) or "Highness" (in the case of great-grandchildren).


EDIT: Just to reinforce my comment above, I checked the Wikipedia articles on Queen Anne (both in English and in Danish) and they state that her title prior to marrying Prince George of Denmark was indeed Her Royal Highness The Lady Anne, which seems to confirm that her princely title was a purely Danish rather than an English title.

Glad that you at least acknowledge that there are other titles than Cambridge as you suggested earlier, so we at least have Clarence, York, Cambridge (next to Sussex). Other titles that could be reused have been discussed (Victoria created many double dukedoms, I don't expect that to happen again, so those second dukefoms could easily be introduced as primary dukedom0; and there is the option to create new ducal titles - which especially might be appropriate for the younger bunch if the monarchs has several sons. So far, quite a few dukedoms have returned to the crown. York will return aftr one generation. If James doesn't have any sons Edinburgh might be back in 2 generations, Gloucester also depends on 1 in each generation so could easily end. The only one that seems lost for the royal family is Kent.

As families are smaller these days; as long as peerages are restricted to male heirs chances are that several dukedoms return to the crown within the first few generations. So, again, it doesn't seem to be a very pressing issue and certainly not one that requires retrospective actions

I don't see ducal titles becoming inheritable in maternal line anytime soon, so the chances that Gloucester and Edinburgh may become extinct are by no means neglible. York and Cambridge of course will be available in the next generation and we don't know what will happen to Sussex. In any case, there are other available dukedoms which the Royal Family could use as mentioned in this thread (Ross, Kendal, Buckingham, etc.) besides the obvious ones like Clarence, and, in the unlikely event that they ran out of titles completely, a new one could still be created.

Personally, I think a good move would be to use earldoms more often (as was done in Edward's case) and leave dukedoms only for people in direct line to the throne.

 

[Gawin]

The remainder to William’s dukedom is ‘heirs males’ but yes a peerage for Harry could include the remainder ‘heirs female’ or ‘heirs general’ although The Queen seems to be old school.

Changes wil come under Charles, not The Queen.

Very good point, some of the current practices are followed simply because the Queen prefers it that way. And it's understandable that she stick to the practices and traditions that were in place when she became queen & she's comfortable with. She has modernized the monarchy in other areas. Some changes can wait for Charles and William.

 

[Rudolph]

I think a big issue is the government, especially now in our ‘egalitarian’ society doesn’t want hereditary peerages to go on and on.

That’s why hereditary peerages are now in practice limited to the royal family with a remainder of heirs male.

 

[Somebody]

The Netherlands is actually the only exception in your examples. Indeed, Laurentien and Mabel are not princesses in their own right, although Máxima was and actually still is (like Mathilde). I don't know why all three were referred to by their own names when their legal status was different.

The reason that Máxima was made a princess in her own right is that her predecessors (Claus, Bernhard, Hendrik) had been made princes in their own right as they couldn't take their wife's rank. It wasn't necessary for Máxima (as women take their husband's titles - using their own names) but that's why it was done... All other women married into the royal family in the last 20 years are also known as 'princess 'own first name'.

Legally nobody in the Netherlands takes the husband's surname upon marriage; your family name remains unchanged. The government however registers how you want to be addressed. Ttraditionally 'husband's surname' hyphen 'maiden name'. For example, if Margriet's children hadn't been princesses, princess Aimée would have been known as 'Aimée van Vollenhoven-Söhngen'. Her passport will certainly say 'Söhngen' in the field for surname, probably with on the next line that has the heading 'spouse of' it will say '(prins) van Oranje-Nassau, van Vollenhoven' (I've no clue whether and how titles are included in Dutch passports).

 

[Gawin]

Yes, I read somewhere that some in the British government aren't in favor of gender neutral peerages not because they support the current rules but because they prefer to see the titles die out completely for lack of male heirs.