Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[MaiaMia_53]

Wasn't it likely Edward and Sophie who wished for their children not to be HRH Prince and Princess? Princess Anne did not want her first husband to receive a title upon marriage, when it was offered by the Queen.

It will be fascinating to see if Meghan and Harry will prefer for their children to be HRH, or whether they will wish for them to be styled upon birth and remain thereafter styled as the children of a Duke, even after Prince Charles ascends to the throne.

Here's a recent video discussing the title possibilities. According to royal historian, Marlene Koenig, "[the fact that] no announcement about children's titles came on the morning of Prince Harry's wedding (as it did on the morning of Prince Edward's wedding), leads [to the belief] that there will be a Letters Patent before [M&H's] first child to ensure their children are royal."

 

[JSH]

I disagree with the video. The lack of an announcement the morning of the wedding regarding titles for potential children of the Sussexes leads me to expect that nothing will be done and existing Letters Patent will be allowed to determine the children's titles and royal status (or lack thereof).

 

[Gawin]

I disagree with the video. The lack of an announcement the morning of the wedding regarding titles for potential children of the Sussexes leads me to expect that nothing will be done and existing Letters Patent will be allowed to determine the children's titles and royal status (or lack thereof).

I think you're right. The Queen has a conservative approach and I suspect she prefers to leave George V's Letters Patent in place and deal with any exceptions on a case-by-case basis. If anyone replaces the 1917 Letters Patent it will probably be Charles or William.

 

[ladongas]

The lifestyle of an Earl

Some years ago, I read that Angus Ogilvy, the husband of Princess Alexandra, had refused an earldom because he couldn’t afford to lead the lifestyle of an Earl. Are there no middle class earls, living in modest villas, and in a low key fashion?

 

[Somebody]

I disagree with the video. The lack of an announcement the morning of the wedding regarding titles for potential children of the Sussexes leads me to expect that nothing will be done and existing Letters Patent will be allowed to determine the children's titles and royal status (or lack thereof).

I agree. There is no need to announce anything if current rules apply. That is: any children born in the queen's reign will be lord and lady Mountbatten-Windsor, except for the eldest son who will use Harry's secondary title (assuming that his titles are males-heir).

If they have any children before Charles is king, they have time to indicate what will be done upon his ascension to the thtone as any grandchildren would become HRH prince(ss) X of Sussex. If they don't have any children at that point they can wait for a pregnancy before announcing anything if the decision would be not to style them as male-line grandchildren of the monar h according to the LP of 1917.

 

[Mbruno]

Some years ago, I read that Angus Ogilvy, the husband of Princess Alexandra, had refused an earldom because he couldn’t afford to lead the lifestyle of an Earl. Are there no middle class earls, living in modest villas, and in a low key fashion?

In England and Scotland, as far as I understand, aristocrats used to own (and many still do own) large tracts of land (or, more broadly, real estate). That goes back really to the original association between titles of nobility and land, even though feudal tenure had already been abolished by the early 17th century and most aristocrats started to commercially lease their land to tenant farmers at that time. In more recent times, however, peerages started to be increasingly created for politicians , courtiers or generals, as a reward to services to the Crown or the country and without any connection to land, and, at the same, even many of the previously landed families had to sell their assets due to financial difficulties.



Back when voting rights were tied to property ownership and even members of the House of Commons were mostly landowners (gentry), it didn't make a lot of difference, but, nowadays, I am pretty sure that there are families who hold peerages and no longer own large tracts of land or big country houses, and live normal middle-class lives.

 

[Rudolph]

Queen Mary’s brother, Prince Adolphus The Duke Of Teck, lobbied King George V for a dukedom in 1917 when he was forced to relinquish his German titles. The king denied his request on the grounds Adolphus didn’t have sufficient land or wealth to fund the lifestyle befitting a British Duke. He instead made him Marquess of Cambridge.

Outside the royal family, Dukes are pretty much the last large landowning class in Britain although there’s Earls as well. Earl Spencer is an example.

 

[Somebody]

It was really nice to see Lady Louise in a carriage but quite strange that preference was given to a lady over royal highnesses. It seems that the Wessex children are being given the same treatment as their York cousins which calls into question why they don't enjoy a similar style. Either make sure that they live a private life like their Phillips cousins or elevate them to what they were entitled to as male-line grandchildren of the monarch...

I wonder what Charles will do: I'd say that if Harry's children (if they have any) are elevated to royal highnesses, he should do the same to the Wessexes when they become Edinburghs. If H&M's children remain Lords and Ladies, so can the Wessex children.

 

[Lumutqueen]

It was really nice to see Lady Louise in a carriage but quite strange that preference was given to a lady over royal highnesses. It seems that the Wessex children are being given the same treatment as their York cousins which calls into question why they don't enjoy a similar style. Either make sure that they live a private life like their Phillips cousins or elevate them to what they were entitled to as male-line grandchildren of the monarch...

Louise and James have titles though, Peter and Zara don't. In what regard was Louise given preference over royal highnesses?

 

[Somebody]

Another thing I wonder is whether the Duke of Sussex title is heirs male of the body according to primogeniture or that it is just 'heirs of the body according to primogeniture'. This would be consistent with the change made in the order of succession but a huge deviation from tradition. When will that be announced?

If heirs male that doesn't create a new situation for other titles.
If male preference it would open up to female inheritance but would neither satisfy those who call for equality nor those who want to stick to tradition.
If heirs this could (and imo should) impact other titles within the BRF.

In that case I would wonder what they would do with the Duke of Edinburgh title. Making that gender neutral would impact Louise and James as Louise would be the heir instead of James, however, James is the heir of both the Earl of Wessex title and the Viscount Severn title. Not having secondary titles to a dical title would be highly unusual, so in that case the Duke of Edinburgh title should probably award with two secondary titles eventhough Edward already enjoys two titles.

Keeping the above in mind, in that case it would also make sense to eventually make Beatrice heir to her father's title (by creating it again) and probably give all younger children of children of a monarch the title of earl (as James will be if he doesn't become duke; except of course for the heir's children who will eventually be children of the monarch), so Eugenie should be granted an earldom in her own right on her wedding day...

 

[Somebody]

Louise and James have titles though, Peter and Zara don't. In what regard was Louise given preference over royal highnesses?

She was riding in a carriage, the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester nor the Duchess of Gloucester nor the Prince and Princess Michael, nor Princess Alexandra were in a carriage.

I am aware that Peter and Zara have no title, however, it was requested that Louise and James were treated as children of an earl, so private citizens.

 

[Rudolph]

I’m 99.9999 percent certain Harry’s dukedom is heirs male. William’s dukedom is heirs male.

Harry’s dukedom will appear in The Gazette in the next couple of weeks. It would be such a departure from tradition, I’m sure it would have been announced if the remainder was anything other than heirs male.

 

[Lumutqueen]

She was riding in a carriage, the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester nor the Duchess of Gloucester nor the Prince and Princess Michael, nor Princess Alexandra were in a carriage.

I am aware that Peter and Zara have no title, however, it was requested that Louise and James were treated as children of an earl, so private citizens.

Lady Louise is granddaughter to The Queen and of age to ride in a carriage, she's always going to take preference over The Queens cousins. From what I can gather the only times recently where Sophie and Louise have not been in a carriage are in 2015 when they were attending the wedding of Carl-Philip, and last year when Sophie was rumoured to be at her fathers birthday party.

How do you link children of an earl to private citizen? Louise and James participate quite openly in the main royal events, the fact that they have requested privacy whilst the children are in school is quite understandable, this respect was afforded to William, Henry, Beatrice and Eugenie.

 

[cepe]

She was riding in a carriage, the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester nor the Duchess of Gloucester nor the Prince and Princess Michael, nor Princess Alexandra were in a carriage.

I am aware that Peter and Zara have no title, however, it was requested that Louise and James were treated as children of an earl, so private citizens.

I thought it was because they are higher in the succession? It isn't about titles or HRH.

 

[Mbruno]

Another thing I wonder is whether the Duke of Sussex title is heirs male of the body according to primogeniture or that it is just 'heirs of the body according to primogeniture'. This would be consistent with the change made in the order of succession but a huge deviation from tradition. When will that be announced?

If heirs male that doesn't create a new situation for other titles.
If male preference it would open up to female inheritance but would neither satisfy those who call for equality nor those who want to stick to tradition.
If heirs this could (and imo should) impact other titles within the BRF.

In that case I would wonder what they would do with the Duke of Edinburgh title. Making that gender neutral would impact Louise and James as Louise would be the heir instead of James, however, James is the heir of both the Earl of Wessex title and the Viscount Severn title. Not having secondary titles to a dical title would be highly unusual, so in that case the Duke of Edinburgh title should probably award with two secondary titles eventhough Edward already enjoys two titles.

Keeping the above in mind, in that case it would also make sense to eventually make Beatrice heir to her father's title (by creating it again) and probably give all younger children of children of a monarch the title of earl (as James will be if he doesn't become duke; except of course for the heir's children who will eventually be children of the monarch), so Eugenie should be granted an earldom in her own right on her wedding day...

I would be very surprised if the remainder to the title of Duke of Edinburgh, when it is recreated for Prince Edward, were "heirs to the body" according to primogeniture rather than "heirs to the body male". Agnatic primogeniture is the default rule of succession in the British peerage and has been changed recently only in exceptional circumstances when there were no living male heirs to a new title and the eldest daughter was then allowed to inherit the peerage subject, however, to succession by agnatic primogeniture in the subsequent generation. I don't see King Charles III (or George VII) taking the initiative to change the default rule for no obvious reasons, especially considering that Edward has a son who can inherit both the dukedom of Edinburgh and the earldom of Wessex.


I would believe that a change to the remainder would occur only if the UK parliament passed a bill introducing gender equality in the succession to hereditary peerages. There have been attempts to do that recently, including a bill sponsored by the Downton Abbey creator, Lord Fellowes of West Stafford, but none of the proposed bills made into law.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

One of the confusing things is that numerous people believe the Queen left it to the Wessexes and the Sussexes to make the decisions about their children's titles, yet few people believe that she let them make the decisions about the remainders of their peerages. Why is that?

 

[Somebody]

Lady Louise is granddaughter to The Queen and of age to ride in a carriage, she's always going to take preference over The Queens cousins. From what I can gather the only times recently where Sophie and Louise have not been in a carriage are in 2015 when they were attending the wedding of Carl-Philip, and last year when Sophie was rumoured to be at her fathers birthday party.

So, did Peter and Zara ride in the carriage as grandchildren of the monarch when they were higher up in the line of succession (Peter started out as number 5 and Zara as number 6) or when their cousins were too young to ride?

How do you link children of an earl to private citizen? Louise and James participate quite openly in the main royal events, the fact that they have requested privacy whilst the children are in school is quite understandable, this respect was afforded to William, Henry, Beatrice and Eugenie.

They indeed participate quite openly which is inconsistent with them not being royal highnesses which was done to give them a more normal life. However, clearly, that is not what they truly wanted for these children. They want them to be treated as if they were royal highnesses (whose privacy should of course be respected as well). So, thanks for proving my point

 

[Lumutqueen]

One of the confusing things is that numerous people believe the Queen left it to the Wessexes and the Sussexes to make the decisions about their children's titles, yet few people believe that she let them make the decisions about the remainders of their peerages. Why is that?

At the minute we know exactly what's happening to titles for the children. Louise and James are styled as that of an Earl, it is unknown if their titles will change when their father inherits the DOE title.

At present Henry's children, if born in the reign of The Queen they won't have HRHs unless new LPs are granted. If born in the reign of Charles, they will have HRHs automatically. I think with the fact Williams title is with the remainder of heirs of the male body, I see no reason why Henrys won't be either. I don't think Edward or Henry had/have choices in the remainders, right now the peerage system is just not their yet.

 

[Somebody]

One of the confusing things is that numerous people believe the Queen left it to the Wessexes and the Sussexes to make the decisions about their children's titles, yet few people believe that she let them make the decisions about the remainders of their peerages. Why is that?

I personally think she consults them but it is the queen who decides. I am quite sure that Harry and Meghan would prefer an equal gender title over a male heirs but it's up to the queen to grant or not snd she has to consider other factors, including imlications for other titles, as well.

 

[Lumutqueen]

So, did Peter and Zara ride in the carriage as grandchildren of the monarch when they were higher up in the line of succession (Peter started out as number 5 and Zara as number 6) or when their cousins were too young to ride?


They indeed participate quite openly which is inconsistent with them not being royal highnesses which was done to give them a more normal life. However, clearly, that is not what they truly wanted for these children. They want them to be treated as if they were royal highnesses (whose privacy should of course be respected as well). So, thanks for proving my point

Zara and Peter have never been in a carriage, only ever on the balcony with their father.

I didn't say it had anything to do with the line of succession, Louise is closer to her grandmother than her grandmothers cousins are at this point so for me that's quite obviously why she is included in the parade and not them. As I have pointed out The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester clearly take the Wessexes place when they are not at the event.

I don't see how that is inconsistent with them not being royal highnesses. Louise and James quite clearly have a normal life, or as normal as it's going to get for them. They're always going to be at events like this. They attend family gatherings/birthdays. Louise is not seen doing engagements on behalf of her grandmother is she? It's like me or you going to your mums birthday party. Louise was last seen at her cousins wedding, Windsor Horse Show (where she was carriage riding) and then Easter. Please let me know where she has been treated like a royal highness at any of those occasions or if I have missed any?

If you wish to twist words, please go somewhere else as it's not the done thing here. Just because Louise rides once a year in a carriage with her mother and father, does not mean that Edward and Sophie want them to be royal highnesses with the privacy of private citizens.

 

[JR76]

At the minute we know exactly what's happening to titles for the children. Louise and James are styled as that of an Earl, it is unknown if their titles will change when their father inherits the DOE title.

What will change is that they'll be given the rank and precedence of the children of a duke instead of that of the children of an earl though I'm a bit unsure if James title will change. Normally he'd be styled with the courtesy title of Earl of Wessex if Edward had inherited the ducal title directly from Philip. Could it be different in this case since Edward holds the title of Earl of Wessex not as a courtesy title but as a peerage?

 

[Lumutqueen]

What will change is that they'll be given the rank and precedence of the children of a duke instead of that of an earl. Regarding if James title will change I'm not sure. Normally had Edward inherited the ducal title directly from Philip, James would be styled with the courtesy title Earl of Wessex. Though I wonder if it'll be different in this case since Edward holds the title of Earl of Wessex not as a courtesy title but as a peerage?

I guess it depends if the new DOE comes with the courtesy titles it currently has? Then I guess James would be Earl of Merioneth and Viscount Severn perhaps?

 

[Mbruno]

What will change is that they'll be given the rank and precedence of the children of a duke instead of that of an earl. Regarding if James title will change I'm not sure. Normally had Edward inherited the ducal title directly from Philip, James would be styled with the courtesy title Earl of Wessex. Though I wonder if it'll be different in this case since Edward holds the title of Earl of Wessex not as a courtesy title but as a peerage?

Prince Philip's subsidiary title as DoE is Earl of Merioneth if I am not mistaken. If Edward had inherited the title directly from his father, then I believe James would be called Earl of Merioneth by courtesy. Since the title will be recreated though for Edward, it is possible that he will not be granted any new earldom with it and will just keep the title of Earl of Wessex he already has as a subsidiary title. Then, James would be referred to as Earl of Wessex by courtesy when his father is the Duke of Edinburgh.


James himself will not be given any new peerage of his own,

 

[Somebody]

Zara and Peter have never been in a carriage, only ever on the balcony with their father.

I didn't say it had anything to do with the line of succession, Louise is closer to her grandmother than her grandmothers cousins are at this point so for me that's quite obviously why she is included in the parade and not them. As I have pointed out The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester clearly take the Wessexes place when they are not at the event.

I'm sorry, that was cepe's explanation. However, doesn't your explanation also apply to Peter and Zara?

I don't see how that is inconsistent with them not being royal highnesses. Louise and James quite clearly have a normal life, or as normal as it's going to get for them. They're always going to be at events like this. They attend family gatherings/birthdays. Louise is not seen doing engagements on behalf of her grandmother is she? It's like me or you going to your mums birthday party. Louise was last seen at her cousins wedding, Windsor Horse Show (where she was carriage riding) and then Easter. Please let me know where she has been treated like a royal highness at any of those occasions or if I have missed any?

If you wish to twist words, please go somewhere else as it's not the done thing here. Just because Louise rides once a year in a carriage with her mother and father, does not mean that Edward and Sophie want them to be royal highnesses with the privacy of private citizens.

I am not trying to twist your words and do not intend to leave just because you have a different point of view and twist my words - of course you are free to have a different interpretation of the facts we both observe. I was merely stating that your reasoning is completely consistent with the point I was trying to make which is that Louise and James are receiving the same treatment as Beatrice and Eugenie and not the same treatment as Peter and Zara. By opting for their children to be addressed as children of an earl it was suggested that they didn't want the burden of a royal life but they are participating in this royal life in exactly the same way as their York cousins i.e. as they would as royal highnesses.

If they wanted the treatment of children of an earl they could still be at the balcony as members of the family (just like others without any title or those that are styled comparable to them) but by accepting this prominent place in a carriage at the cost of royal highnesses, such as the Gloucesters, the message is quite clear they want to be treated as royals (with a limited role like TRH Beatrice and Eugenie) which Louise isn't because of her grandmothers decision. So, i am just advocating for consistency; either make them royal highnesses or treat them according to their status, i.e. 'not royal' like their cousins Peter and Zara and many second cousins, such as Lord Frederick Windsor, Lady Helen Taylor, the Earl of Saint Andrews and many others within the family.

 

[Somebody]

What will change is that they'll be given the rank and precedence of the children of a duke instead of that of the children of an earl though I'm a bit unsure if James title will change. Normally he'd be styled with the courtesy title of Earl of Wessex if Edward had inherited the ducal title directly from Philip. Could it be different in this case since Edward holds the title of Earl of Wessex not as a courtesy title but as a peerage?

It will indeed be interesting how they go about that. Can a peerage be made subsidiary to a higher title by the same titleholder? I am sure there are examples in the British nobility of something similar happening.

 

[JR76]

Prince Philip's subsidiary title as DoE is Earl of Merioneth if I am not mistaken. If Edward had inherited the title directly from his father, then I believe James would be called Earl of Merioneth by courtesy. Since the title will be recreated though for Edward, it is possible that he will not be granted any new earldom with it and will just keep the title of Earl of Wessex he already has as a subsidiary title. Then, James would be referred to as Earl of Wessex by courtesy when his father is the Duke of Edinburgh.


James himself will not be given any new peerage of his own,

But Edward will still hold the peerage of Wessex in his own right. It's not something that will disappear just because he's a duke.
I might be making things more complicated than they actually are

In my opinion Edward will receive the title Duke of Edinburgh without those subsidiary titles currently held by Philip since he already holds a few titles of his own.

 

[Mbruno]

I'm sorry, that was cepe's explanation. However, doesn't your explanation also apply to Peter and Zara?


I am not trying to twist your words and do not intend to leave just because you have a different point of view. I was merely stating that your reasoning is completely consistent with the point I was trying to make which is that Louise and James are receiving the same treatment as Beatrice and Eugenie and not the same treatment as Peter and Zara. By opting for their children to be addressed as children of an earl it was suggested that they didn't want the burden of a royal life but they are participating in this royal life in exactly the same way as their York cousins i.e. as they would as royal highnesses.

If they wanted the treatment of children of an earl they could still be at the balcony as members of the family (just like others without any title or those that are styled comparable to them) but by accepting this prominent place in a carriage at the cost of royal highnesses, such as the Gloucesters, the message is quite clear they want to be treated as royals (with a limited role like TRH Beatrice and Eugenie) which Louise isn't because of her grandmothers decision. So, i am just advocating for consistency; either make them royal highnesses or treat them according to their status, i.e. 'not royal' like their cousins Peter and Zara and many second cousins, such as Lord Frederick Windsor, Lady Helen Taylor, the Earl of Saint Andrews and many others within the family.

I agree with your point that there is no obvious reason to treat Louise and Peter/Zara differently when none of them are HRHs. On the Gloucesters though, I think it is clear that the carriages are reserved primarily for the Queen's immediate family, i.e. her children and grandchildren, or their respective spouses (the Duke of Kent being an exception because of his role as a colonel who can no longer ride on a horse), so it is understandable that they should take precedence over the Gloucesters.



Again, the only inconsistency IMHO is that, regardless of titles, descendants of the sovereign in paternal line are still given a more prominent role than those who descend from the sovereign in maternal line. That is true also when you compare the status of the Queen's cousins, who are HRHs, with her nephew and niece (Princess Margaret's children), even though the latter are higher in the line of succession than the former.

But Edward will still hold the peerage of Wessex in his own right. It's not something that will disappear just because he's a duke.
I might be making things more complicated than they actually are

In my opinion Edward will receive the title Duke of Edinburgh without those subsidiary titles currently held by Philip since he already holds a few titles of his own.

I believe that is exactly what I said. Edward will be Duke of Edinburgh and Earl of Wessex , but probably won't be given a second earldom like the earldom of Merioneth which Prince Philip currently holds. James will use as courtesy title his father's second highest title, which will be that of Earl of Wessex. Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Somebody]

I agree with your point that there is no obvious reason to treat Louise and Peter/Zara differently when none of them are HRHs. On the Gloucesters though, I think it is clear that the carriages are reserved primarily for the Queen's immediate family, i.e. her children and grandchildren, or their respective spouses (the Duke of Kent being an exception because of his role as a colonel who can no longer ride on a horse), so it is understandable that should take precedence over the Gloucesters.

Again, the only inconsistency IMHO is that, regardless of titles, descendants of the sovereign in paternal line are given a more prominent role than those who descend from the sovereign in maternal line. That is true also when you compare the status of the Queen's cousins, who are HRHs, with her nephew and niece (Princess Margaret's children), even though the latter are higher in the line of succession than the former.

Yes, and traditionally that preference for male line was directly tied to them being HRH, as soon as a generation was no longer a royal highness this prominent role was no longer applied. For example, as male line descendents the Earl of Ulster and his sisters Lady Davina and Lady Rose are less prominent than HRH the Duke of Kent who is from a more junior branch.

 

[Osipi]

One other thing we have to remember too is that when it comes to the monarch and the royal family, there are two separate factions that are involved. We have the people that are related to the Queen and we have the people that work for the family "Firm". Most of the senior ranking members of the royal family with the HRH honorific style denoting the closeness of their relationship to the Queen work for the family "Firm" also. That's all a HRH means. Its a style and not a title nor a peerage. Edward and Sophie, with the Queen's permission prefer their children to be styled as children of a peer (Earl now, Duke later) than be styled as HRHs or prince and princess.

When we see the family all together at Trooping the Color, we're seeing a family get together to celebrate their matriarch. Its not a occasion actually where its celebrating an event that a monarch has achieved such as the Jubilees are.

As for changing anything with the peerage, its my belief that the government is also involved with making those decisions. Its not solely the Queen's decision. "Like all other peers, life peers are created by the Sovereign, who acts on the advice of the Prime Minister or the House of Lords Appointments Commission." This tells me that the monarch, alone, does not determine a peerage or the remainder attached to it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords

 

[RoyalHighness 2002]

Also another factor that comes into play with this is rank. While James and Louise may not hold the usual style and title of a male-line grandchild of the monarch, they do still hold that rank. This is why in regular, official precedence Lady Louise would come after Beatrice and Eugenie. So technically, Louise's status is equal to that of the Duke of Gloucester. This discussion on rank also ties into whether James and Louise will receive Coats of Arms and coronets, which would be a given if they were HRH, but is debatable in their unique situation.