Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Mbruno]

A hypothetical question: the 2nd Duke of Whatever acceeds to the throne through his mother, Jane Doe, but he also holds the Dukedom which he inherited from his father, John Doe. I assume the Dukedom is merging with the crown the moment he becomes King? Is it absolute and cannot pass to anyone? What about a situation when he has a daughter only, who succeeds him in the Crown but cannot inherit the Dukedom. Will it pass to his younger brother or is it already extinct because of its merge with the Crown and the brother needs to be given a new dukedom (re-creation)?

Or when the said King, former 2nd Duke, has only one son, who changed his religion and became Catholic, thus losing his rights to the throne. He cannot inherit the throne but what about the Dukedom? I assume the Dukedom needs to be re-created for him, if the King wants it to be passed on to the next generation. But maybe I'm wrong?

British law currently requires no religious test to succeed to peerages. In fact, there are well-known Catholic peers, e.g. the Dukes of Norfolk. If an ordinary duke becomes king, the peerage merges with the Crown. If the king wanted to pass it on to his son, he could recreate it for him by new LPs. At that point, it would become a royal dukedom though as the king's son would be a prince with the style of Royal Highness even if he were Catholic; his only legal "disability" would be that, as a Catholic, he could not succeed to the Crown.


The latter is actually an important point: being out of the line of succession to the Crown does not cancel the dignity of prince of the United Kingdom, which is based, under the 1917 LPs, only on kinship to a British sovereign. That is different for example from the practice in other countries like Denmark and Sweden where, in the past, princes who were excluded from the line of succession for unequal or unconsented marriages ceased to be princes and HRHs.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

As I said, the Princess should follow an example a low-scale wedding of a minor prince not expected to work for the Firm, who Prince Richard was back in the days.

But Richard and Birgitte married at Richard’s home church. Eugenie and Jack are marrying at Eugenie’s home church as well-but Eugenie’s happens to be St George’s.

 

[kbk]

The Government is convinced that it is undesireable when titles of the Royal House are used by persons who are neither members of the Royal House nor successors to the Throne."

That's a good point!

British law currently requires no religious test to succeed to peerages. In fact, there are well-known Catholic peers, e.g. the Dukes of Norfolk. If an ordinary duke becomes king, the peerage merges with the Crown. If the king wanted to pass it on to his son, he could recreate it for him by new LPs. At that point, it would become a royal dukedom though as the king's son would be a prince with the style of Royal Highness even if he were Catholic; his only legal "disability" would be that, as a Catholic, he could not succeed to the Crown.

Thanks, Mbruno, I know that . I wasn't absolutely sure only about that the peerages always go extinct when their holders become Sovereigns.
One thing, a dukedom is "royal" only when its current holder is a royal.

The latter is actually an important point: being out of the line of succession to the Crown does not cancel the dignity of prince of the United Kingdom, which is based, under the 1917 LPs, only on kinship to a British sovereign. That is different for example from the practice in other countries like Denmark and Sweden where, in the past, princes who were excluded from the line of succession for unequal or unconsented marriages ceased to be princes and HRHs.

The cases of morganatic (non-dynastic) marriages of continental princes are not analogous to the topic of our discussion as those were not based on the religion of their brides but their non-equal birth. In Britain (similar to France), there were no such thing like morganatic marriage. Since the passing of Royal Marriages Act, though, unapproved marriages of British princes were simply null and void, thus their children being born out of wedlock. Morganatic children of European princes were their legitimate children but without dynastic status.

 

[Mbruno]

That's a good point!



Thanks, Mbruno, I know that . I wasn't absolutely sure only about that the peerages always go extinct when their holders become Sovereigns.
One thing, a dukedom is "royal" only when its current holder is a royal.



The cases of morganatic (non-dynastic) marriages of continental princes are not analogous to the topic of our discussion as those were not based on the religion of their brides but their non-equal birth. In Britain (similar to France), there were no such thing like morganatic marriage. Since the passing of Royal Marriages Act, though, unapproved marriages of British princes were simply null and void, thus their children being born out of wedlock. Morganatic children of European princes were their legitimate children but without dynastic status.

The focus of my argument was not on the reason for the exclusion (unequal marriage or religion), but rather on the effect of the exclusion on the title. In Denmark and Sweden, princes who forfeited their succession rights ceased to be princes and HRHs (or HHs) in the past. For example, HH Prince Ingolf of Denmark became HE Count Ingolf of Rosenborg, and HRH Prince Carl Johan of Sweden, Duke of Dalarna became Carl Johan Bernadotte (Prince Bernadotte and Count of Wisborg in Luxembourg).


By contrast, Prince Michael dropped out of the UK line of succession when he married a Catholic bride, but remained HRH Prince Michael of Kent.

 

[kbk]

Yes, they did lose their styles and titles. But this was because their marriages were unapproved by the monarch, because their spouses were not of Royal birth or maybe they didn't care? But not the spouses' religion. Prince Michael married a Catholic and lost his rights to the throne (now he's back in the line) but his marriage was not a morganatic one. Willem-Alexander married a Catholic (who remains one!) and is now the King.

 

[Mbruno]

Yes, they did lose their styles and titles. But this was because their marriages were unapproved by the monarch, because their spouses were not of Royal birth or maybe they didn't care? But not the spouses' religion. Prince Michael married a Catholic and lost his rights to the throne (now he's back in the line) but his marriage was not a morganatic one. Willem-Alexander married a Catholic (who remains one!) and is now the King.

In the UK specifically, it is possible now under the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 to forefeit succession rights because of unconsented marriages, but, again, my reading of the 1917 LPs together with the Succession Act itself is that the loss of succession rights per se would have no immmediate effect on titles. If Harry for example had married Meghan without consent, he and his future children would have been out of the line of succession, but, in principle, he would have remained an HRH and a prince, and his children would also be HRHs and princes when Charles ascended the thone. Maybe the Queen wouldn't have made him a royal duke under those circumstances, or maybe she would have issued new LPs stripping Harry (and his descendants) of his (their future) HRH, but in the latter case, my understanding is that a new written legal instrument would be needed, or the Queen's will would have to be made known in some other way.

 

[Ish]

Posts discussing Dutch titles have been moved here.

Please keep this on the topic of British titles.

 

[mathmannix]

The Duke of York's titles

When Prince Andrew was created Duke of York on his wedding day, he was also created Earl of Inverness and Baron Killyleagh (as Royal Duchies always have two subsidiary titles named for places in other countries within the UK, in this case Inverness in Scotland and Killyleagh in Northern Ireland to go with the Duke title for York in England.)
I know the Duchy will once again cease to exist upon the Duke's death (as he is unlikely to ever father a legitimate son at this point), unless of course a law is passed allowing all Duchies to pass to eldest daughters.
Under the current laws, would the subsidiary titles (both, or just the Earldom) go extinct as well upon his death, or are they inheritable by his daughters? And if they are, would they go into abeyance upon his death with a 50% share between Beatrice and Eugenie, or would they pass directly to Beatrice?

 

[Biri]

A Duke of York is a traditional title to the second son of the King; is it probablr that the Duke of Sussex will inherit it?

 

[Excalibur]

When Prince Andrew was created Duke of York on his wedding day, he was also created Earl of Inverness and Baron Killyleagh (as Royal Duchies always have two subsidiary titles named for places in other countries within the UK, in this case Inverness in Scotland and Killyleagh in Northern Ireland to go with the Duke title for York in England.)
I know the Duchy will once again cease to exist upon the Duke's death (as he is unlikely to ever father a legitimate son at this point), unless of course a law is passed allowing all Duchies to pass to eldest daughters.
Under the current laws, would the subsidiary titles (both, or just the Earldom) go extinct as well upon his death, or are they inheritable by his daughters? And if they are, would they go into abeyance upon his death with a 50% share between Beatrice and Eugenie, or would they pass directly to Beatrice?

The subsidiary titles are part and parcel of the ducal title. Either they all are inherited (very unlikely, unless the law is changed) or they all merge with the crown.

A Duke of York is a traditional title to the second son of the King; is it probablr that the Duke of Sussex will inherit it?

The Duke of York, as it was created, is only inheritable by the current Duke's "male heirs of the body", so the Duke of Sussex cannot inherit it. After Andrew dies, and if he has no male heirs, then the title will merge with the crown and be available to be created again. While it is possible that it will be granted to Harry, the most likely next recipient would be Prince Louis, since Harry already has a royal dukedom.

 

[mathmannix]

The subsidiary titles are part and parcel of the ducal title. Either they all are inherited (very unlikely, unless the law is changed) or they all merge with the crown.

Thanks! I wonder if Prince Andrew will one day be given a new title, perhaps a Marquessate, with special remainder to his daughters... (I guess the other, probably better, option would be to give titles to Beatrice and Eugenie directly if/when they get married. Or to their husbands, but I think it would be better and more "modern" to give the Princesses their own titles, plus that way they would still keep them if they got divorced.)

 

[Denville]

Thanks! I wonder if Prince Andrew will one day be given a new title, perhaps a Marquessate, with special remainder to his daughters... (I guess the other, probably better, option would be to give titles to Beatrice and Eugenie directly if/when they get married. Or to their husbands, but I think it would be better and more "modern" to give the Princesses their own titles, plus that way they would still keep them if they got divorced.)

why would he be given another title?

 

[Lumutqueen]

Thanks! I wonder if Prince Andrew will one day be given a new title

He's never going to get another title. He will be The Duke of York, and DOY alone until he dies.

 

[QueenEmpath]

A Duke of York is a traditional title to the second son of the King; is it probable that the Duke of Sussex will inherit it?

Probably but there's also the debate of who'll become the next King. If Prince William become king, Prince Louis will hold this title while Prince George will become Prince of Wales/Duke of a Cambridge

 

[Denville]

He's never going to get another title. He will be The Duke of York, and DOY alone until he dies.

well he will also have the subsidiary titles.....

Probably but there's also the debate of who'll become the next King. If Prince William become king, Prince Louis will hold this title while Prince George will become Prince of Wales/Duke of a Cambridge

when William becomes King, Louis will problaby be given a title on his marriage.. Its possible that he may become Duke of York, if Andrew has passed away by that time. or he may be given another title. It is far in the future...

 

[Queen Claude]

Probably but there's also the debate of who'll become the next King. If Prince William become king, Prince Louis will hold this title while Prince George will become Prince of Wales/Duke of a Cambridge

There is no serious debate about who will be the next King. Charles will be the next King unless he pre-deceases his mother.

It is not a given that George will become the next Duke of Cambridge, far from it in fact. The most likely scenario of George becoming the next Duke of Cambridge is a tragic one, it will be because William died before he (William) became King and therefore George inherited the dukedom rather than it merging with the crown.

Louis may be created The Duke the York if Andrew is deceased and it is the will of the monarch.

 

[Somebody]

If Prince William become king, Prince Louis will hold this title while Prince George will become Prince of Wales/Duke of a Cambridge

George will become the Duke of Cornwall and Rothesay at the moment William becomes king (Charlotte will become The princess Charlotte and Louis The prince Louis). The prince of Wales title will most likely be bestowed on George but there is no reason at all for him to be given an additional dukedom in the form of making him the Duke of Cambridge.

People have speculated that William might want to give Louis the Duke of Cambridge title (instead of York) upon marriage to keep that title among his direct descendents. Furthermore, it would be likely for Charlotte to become The princess royal at some point (after Anne will have passed away)

 

[tommy100]

Also bear in mind that Charles could technically give the title Duke to York to Harry if Andrew were to die before Charles.

 

[Denville]

There is no serious debate about who will be the next King. Charles will be the next King unless he pre-deceases his mother.

It is not a given that George will become the next Duke of Cambridge, far from it in fact. The most likely scenario of George becoming the next Duke of Cambridge is a tragic one, it will be because William died before he (William) became King and therefore George inherited the dukedom rather than it merging with the crown.

Louis may inherit the York dukedom if Andrew is deceased and it is the will of the monarch.

he would not inherit it as it would be a new creation of the D of York title...

 

[Queen Claude]

You're right, "inherit" is the incorrect word, I'll fix that sentence.

 

[Denville]

You're right, "inherit" is the incorrect word, I'll fix that sentence.

Q Claude, I hope you didn't feel I was being pedantic... Agree about the D of Cambridge situation. tho' even if William died, and George became D of Camb, eventaulay he would become King and the title would merge in the crown....

 

[Somebody]

Also bear in mind that Charles could technically give the title Duke to York to Harry if Andrew were to die before Charles.

Yes, in that case that would be a techincal possibility (that hopefully won't exist) but why would he do so? Harry already is a royal duke [whose title will cease to be royal in 2 generations (if he has male heirs of course)]. He could also make George duke of York or give that title to Jsmes or anyone else that he pleases. It is not a law that it is to be given to the second son.

Charles already has 2 titles to bestow: make his eldest son prince of Wales and his youngest brother Duke of Edinburgh.

 

[Stefan]

A Duke of York is a traditional title to the second son of the King; is it probablr that the Duke of Sussex will inherit it?

He can't inherit it as he is no descendant of Andrew. it would have to be new created for hinm. And also not all second sons of british Kings have been Duke iof York. If earlier Duke's of York had sons the title would have been inherited by them (like the Kent and Gloucester titles) and would not have been availible for recreation.

 

[Mbruno]

He's never going to get another title. He will be The Duke of York, and DOY alone until he dies.

Actually, he is also the Earl of Inverness and the Baron Killyleagh.

 

[sndral]

When Prince Andrew was created Duke of York on his wedding day, he was also created Earl of Inverness and Baron Killyleagh (as Royal Duchies always have two subsidiary titles named for places in other countries within the UK, in this case Inverness in Scotland and Killyleagh in Northern Ireland to go with the Duke title for York in England.)
I know the Duchy will once again cease to exist upon the Duke's death (as he is unlikely to ever father a legitimate son at this point), unless of course a law is passed allowing all Duchies to pass to eldest daughters.
Under the current laws, would the subsidiary titles (both, or just the Earldom) go extinct as well upon his death, or are they inheritable by his daughters? And if they are, would they go into abeyance upon his death with a 50% share between Beatrice and Eugenie, or would they pass directly to Beatrice?

Thanks! I wonder if Prince Andrew will one day be given a new title, perhaps a Marquessate, with special remainder to his daughters... (I guess the other, probably better, option would be to give titles to Beatrice and Eugenie directly if/when they get married. Or to their husbands, but I think it would be better and more "modern" to give the Princesses their own titles, plus that way they would still keep them if they got divorced.)

I think the Queen made her views on the matter clear when she granted William the Dukedom of Cambridge by creating it to be inherited by the heirs male of his body. I assume Harry’s Sussex Dukedom is the same. If the Queen was in favor of daughters inheriting the Dukedom she would have worded her grandsons’ Dukedoms to be inherited by the eldest child irrespective of sex IMO.
The Queen also announced that Edward’s children would not be Prince/Princess nor did she bestow a title on Peter when he married or on Mike when he and Zara married. If she chose in essence to demote the children of her third son and to not elevate the children of her second child and daughter, it seems very unlikely that she’d bestow titles on her second son Andrew’s daughters or their future spouses.
We don’t know how Charles feels, but I suspect when he becomes King that he will not disturb the terms of his mother’s creation of the York Dukedom.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The LPs for Harry's dukedom are also 'heirs male of the body' so only Harry's sons and their male line descendants can inherit.

There is a case at the moment being prepared to go to the European Court of Human Rights by some eldest/only daughters who want the law changed arguing that 'heirs male' is discriminatory. The issue is also regularly raised in the UK parliament.

Only if the law were to change would Beatrice inherit York et al or a daughter of Harry's inherit his titles.

I highly doubt that Charles would change anything for Harry and not do it for Andrew's daughters as he would be truly seen as being a vindictive man if her were to do that.

 

[royal-blue]

If there was some tragic event in which the first dozen or so in line to the British throne passed away, and Princess Anne was unexpectedly to find herself on the throne, would her children, daughter in law, and male line grandchildren suddenly become HRHs?

 

[Somebody]

If there was some tragic event in which the first dozen or so in line to the British throne passed away, and Princess Anne was unexpectedly to find herself on the throne, would her children, daughter in law, and male line grandchildren suddenly become HRHs?

In this extremely unlikely event, I assume she would elevate her children to HRH by issuing LPs or using another measure with the same effect, just like Elizabeth's children were made royal highnesses as she was the heir and later queen.

Peter would automatically become the Duke of Cornwall as her eldest living son and heir apparent.

 

[Iluvbertie]

If there was some tragic event in which the first dozen or so in line to the British throne passed away, and Princess Anne was unexpectedly to find herself on the throne, would her children, daughter in law, and male line grandchildren suddenly become HRHs?

Under the 1917 LPs - absolutely.

Peter and Zara would be the children of the monarch and so qualify. Autumn, as the wife of a son of the monarch would also qualify. Savannah and Isla, also as male line grandchildren of the monarch would also be Princesses and Savannah would also be the future Queen due to the changes in legislation in 2015 with the Succession to the Crown Act as a younger brother couldn't replace her in the line of succession.

Zara's daughters and Mike would remain as they are however as the spouse and children of a daughter of the monarch.

 

[mathmannix]

Titles merging into the crown - permanent?

The best way I can think of to ask this question is to presume some deaths to have occurred in the past; hopefully this doesn't offend!

On 20 Nov 1947, just before he married the future Elizabeth II (then HRH The Princess Elizabeth, heiress presumptive), HRH Sir Philip Mountbatten was created Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Merioneth, and Baron Greenwich. Usual inheritance rules for a Dukedom, to heirs male of his body, his male-line descendants.

Let's say that in 1949, after the 1948 birth of Charles (from birth Prince Charles of Edinburgh), that his mother, the Duchess of Edinburgh, died. So Charles succeeded his maternal grandfather as King Charles III (or possibly George VII) in 1952.

Let's say that the Duke of Edinburgh later remarried in 1958. Possibly to Princess Marie Alexandra of Schleswig-Holstein (1927-2000), if I have to pick somebody.

Let's say they had a son, Andrew (still a likely name for the Duke's second son, as it's after his own father, which is the Greek tradition.) He can still be born in 1960.

Let's say that the Duke of Edinburgh died shortly thereafter, in 1961.

Now, the Duchy of Edinburgh merged with the Crown, as it passed to the Duke's eldest son the King.

Let's say that the King (Charles III / George VII) died in 1975, unmarried. He would have been succeeded by his aunt, Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon.

But what about the Duchy of Edinburgh? Would it automatically fall to the former Duke's second son, (non-Prince) Andrew? Or did the title really disappear when the Duke died and it merged with the Crown?