Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Tatiana Maria]

They have been advised not to use it AT ALL. Even inside the UK. And they won't be referred to with the HRH by the Court. That is the deal.

But now that this element of the deal is under review, they might be able to use it after all, pending the outcome.

 

[Lilyflo]

They still are the Duke & Duchess of Sussex & they still are HRH but won't use the style so why not Harry Sussex & Meghan Sussex? I'm sure there are other dukes who style themselves that way for work purposes (don't test me - I can't recall them). I do know for sure that the Duke of Gloucester's heir the Earl of Ulster calls himself Alex Ulster in his working role.

 

[Lumutqueen]

They still are the Duke & Duchess of Sussex & they still are HRH but won't use the style so why not Harry Sussex & Meghan Sussex? I'm sure there are other dukes who style themselves that way for work purposes (don't test me - I can't recall them). I do know for sure that the Duke of Gloucester's heir the Earl of Ulster calls himself Alex Ulster in his working role.

Using your title as your surname like that is usually done when no surname is available to you. Personally, it would make more sense to use Mounbatten-Windsor.

But now that this element of the deal is under review, they might be able to use it after all, pending the outcome.

The only element, I believe, to be under review is how they are known by their Dukedom of Sussex title. Nothing in relation to their HRHs is under review.

 

[DuchessMia]

But now that this element of the deal is under review, they might be able to use it after all, pending the outcome.

I’m sure it is under review since there are other non-working royals who are maintaining their HRHs.

 

[Mbruno]

Using your title as your surname like that is usually done when no surname is available to you. Personally, it would make more sense to use Mounbatten-Windsor.

Peers actually use titles as surnames, even when they have a legal surname (family name in American English). For example, they sign Westminster, Norfolk, Salisbury, etc.



In British passports , I believe the photo page lists the given names only of peers in the given name field (without prefixes such as His Grace or The Rt Hon) followed by the title in the surname field. In the observations page, they include then: "The Holder is [Prefix] [Given Names + Surname/Family Name], [ [Title(s)] [Post-Nominal Letters]" , i.e. the full package.


In any case, the British government's guidance on British passports states that they consider titles to be part of the legal name in the UK.


It is fascinating how the practice changes from country to country with respect to names and titles !

 

[Denville]

Mountbatten Windsor is far too long and not a snapy business name. they can use their title Sussex as a surname if they want to.

 

[Kataryn]

For a British peer, with or without HRH, the customary usage would be to bill himself for example Edward Wessex or Harry Sussex if he chooses not to use his title for business purposes - although he could certainly choose to use Harry Mountbatten-Windsor instead.

He would be Sir Henry Mountbatten-Windsor then and Meghan Lady M-W, as Harry is a K.C.V.O. and thus a knight with the right to put "Sir" before his name.

 

[Lilyflo]

Using your title as your surname like that is usually done when no surname is available to you. Personally, it would make more sense to use Mounbatten-Windsor.

Alex Ulster's surname is Windsor.

The Earl of Snowdon (David Armstrong-Jones) sells his furniture as David Linley, which was his professional name when he was Viscount Linley. His surname remains Armstrong-Jones.

 

[Kataryn]

They still are the Duke & Duchess of Sussex & they still are HRH but won't use the style so why not Harry Sussex & Meghan Sussex? I'm sure there are other dukes who style themselves that way for work purposes (don't test me - I can't recall them). I do know for sure that the Duke of Gloucester's heir the Earl of Ulster calls himself Alex Ulster in his working role.

Michael Ancram used this name even when he was already Marquess of Lothian. Ancram is not the family name but the courtesy title for the heir -

Earl of Ancram but being a member of parliament, Michael Kerr (that's the family name) used his courtesy title as name and stuck with it till he became a Lord in the House of Lords. All legal.


So Harry could be The Duke of Sussex, Harry Sussex, Sir Henry Mountbatten-Windsor (because he is a knight as a KCVO), Henry Windsor (the queen naver made letter patents for the change of the House's name from Windsor to Mountbatten-Windsor for her descendants, so the old LP are still valid, making Harry Henry Windsor or even Henry Windsor, Lord Dumbarton, thus Henry Dumbarton.

 

[Denville]

Why wold he be Lord Dumbarton? He's Duke of Sussex.. the usual way is for the heir to use the secondary title but they've said that Arrchie is just Master Archie..

 

[Mbruno]

Why wold he be Lord Dumbarton? He's Duke of Sussex.. the usual way is for the heir to use the secondary title but they've said that Arrchie is just Master Archie..

I don't know about Harry and Meghan, because they might use their titles professionally, but what would be the point of Archie calling himself Lord Dumbarton if he grew up in the US or Canada ?



He cannot use Lord Dumbarton as his legal name in the US and enroll (American spelling) in school or get a driver's license (American spelling again !) under that name, or at least I don't think he can. And I doubt he will be able to use titles in Canada either if he becomes a Canadian citizen, see my previous discussion on the titles controversy in Canada and Canada opting out of the British/Imperial honours system.

 

[nightsky]

But now that this element of the deal is under review, they might be able to use it after all, pending the outcome.

I believe what's under review is the fact that she is styled as a divorced woman. Not the H.R.H decision. I think there would be a British uproar if they were allowed to use it to make money!

 

[Countessmeout]

The fact is calling Harry as Harry Mountbatten-Windsor is incorrect. Yes it has been used in legal documents when a surname was needed, but that name was never meant to be used by HRH. It was announced that male line members of the family who didn’t hold a title, would use it as a surname. So basically Louise at this moment as her brother is Viscount Severn. And Archie as he doesn’t use his dads title as a courtesy.

Harry and Meghan Sussex fits more with protocol. Like when Harry was Harry Wales in school and army. Not just royals but as pointed out, customary among working peers as well. I believe the duchess of Kent teaches as Katherine Kent. It also has a better ring for business.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I remember reading a DM article where they speculated that the Queen was considering stripping him of the HRH and The Duke of Sussex, and leaving him with Earl of Dumbarton but thought it was could across as too punitive. If this is remotely true it seems that the Queen can strip the peerage without parliamentary action.

It isn’t remotely true. The Queen cannot strip him of his Dukedom. Hence why you read it in a Daily Mail article because nobody bothered to fact check before pressing send.

And that’s why it’s equally surprising to see everyone take the DM at face value all of a sudden.

The story emerged from the Evening Standard and not the Daily Mail.

What is being alleged in the article is that Queen Elizabeth considered a deal under which her grandson would be expected not to use his dukedom, just as he would not use his HRH. Whether the story has any factual basis or not, the idea would be something that could be done by the Queen without Parliament, by my understanding.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/...han-to-earl-and-countess-titles-a4339031.html

 

[Denville]

The story emerged from the Evening Standard and not the Daily Mail.

What is being alleged in the article is that Queen Elizabeth considered a deal under which her grandson would be expected not to use his dukedom, just as he would not use his HRH. Whether the story has any factual basis or not, the idea would be something that could be done by the Queen without Parliament, by my understanding.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/...han-to-earl-and-countess-titles-a4339031.html

Would Harry Dumbarton really sound good?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

OK here's another question. Harry and Meghan supposedly want to raise Archie as a "commoner". So are these titles automatic or can they refuse them?

In my opinion, although others disagree, there is no legal obligation to use any title.

In the case of a peerage, it is also possible to legally disclaim it within a set period of time after succeeding to the title.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The rules for disclaiming a peerage are set out in the Peerage Act of 1963.

Peerage Act 1963

 

[Roslyn]

The fact is calling Harry as Harry Mountbatten-Windsor is incorrect. Yes it has been used in legal documents when a surname was needed, but that name was never meant to be used by HRH. It was announced that male line members of the family who didn’t hold a title, would use it as a surname. So basically Louise at this moment as her brother is Viscount Severn. And Archie as he doesn’t use his dads title as a courtesy.

Harry and Meghan Sussex fits more with protocol. Like when Harry was Harry Wales in school and army. Not just royals but as pointed out, customary among working peers as well. I believe the duchess of Kent teaches as Katherine Kent. It also has a better ring for business.

James only uses "Viscount Severn" as a courtesy title and he will remain a commoner until he succeeds to his father's substantive title/s. As I understand it, he is therefore in the same boat as Louise and is a Mountbatten-Windsor.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

James only uses "Viscount Severn" as a courtesy title and he will remain a commoner until he succeeds to his father's substantive title/s. As I understand it, he is therefore in the same boat as Louise and is a Mountbatten-Windsor.

Per the interpretation taken up by the Royal Family, all descendants in male line (married women excepted) of Elizabeth and Philip are Mountbatten-Windsor, irrespective of their titles; however, the usage of the name is limited to occasions when no royal or peerage title is used (whether because the descendant does not hold such a title or because the title they hold is not used for that occasion).

Thus, the name Mountbatten-Windsor was entered on the marriage certificates of Queen Elizabeth's younger children, since their titles were not used in their marriage certificates.

But Countessmeout is right that apart from legal documents, James will never be required to use Mountbatten-Windsor if he conforms to customary protocol and uses "James Severn" for his private endeavors.

 

[Somebody]

He might be 'earl of Wessex' by the time he is looking for a 'professional name' - although I am still not sure how that will work out; as the duke of Edinburgh title has not been awarded at the same time as the earl of Wessex and viscount Severn titles, so not sure whether they can become subsidiary titles to the duke of Edinburgh title when it is awarded to Edward. Or that the ducal title won't have subsidiary titles, so Edward will simultaneously hold the ducal and earl titles; while the heir of these titles (or more specifically: of the Earl of Wessex title) will always be known as Viscount Severn.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

He might be 'earl of Wessex' by the time he is looking for a 'professional name' - although I am still not sure how that will work out; as the duke of Edinburgh title has not been awarded at the same time as the earl of Wessex and viscount Severn titles, so not sure whether they can become subsidiary titles to the duke of Edinburgh title when it is awarded to Edward. Or that the ducal title won't have subsidiary titles, so Edward will simultaneously hold the ducal and earl titles; while the heir of these titles (or more specifically: of the Earl of Wessex title) will always be known as Viscount Severn.

Yes, they can be used as subsidiary titles without being awarded at the same time. It is quite ordinary for British peers to hold titles awarded at different times as their families were elevated through the ranks (for instance, a commoner being ennobled as a baron, and his great-grandson succeeding as the fourth baron before being elevated to a viscount). The situation may also arise when a special remainder exists and different titles are inherited through the maternal and paternal lines. One example is the Earl Mountbatten, whose much older title Lord Brabourne is used by the heir to the earldom.

James would be expected to be known as Earl of Wessex as a courtesy title when his father becomes Duke of Edinburgh, but he could choose something else if he wishes.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

He might be 'earl of Wessex' by the time he is looking for a 'professional name' - although I am still not sure how that will work out; as the duke of Edinburgh title has not been awarded at the same time as the earl of Wessex and viscount Severn titles, so not sure whether they can become subsidiary titles to the duke of Edinburgh title when it is awarded to Edward. Or that the ducal title won't have subsidiary titles, so Edward will simultaneously hold the ducal and earl titles; while the heir of these titles (or more specifically: of the Earl of Wessex title) will always be known as Viscount Severn.

Once Edward becomes The Duke of edinburgh, the Earl of Wessex title will be a lower rank, so why couldn’t James use it as a courtesy title?

 

[LauraS3514]

Once Edward becomes The Duke of edinburgh, the Earl of Wessex title will be a lower rank, so why couldn’t James use it as a courtesy title?

That would be the normal progression: the heir "borrows" his parent's next highest title by courtesy. James could use both Earl of Wessex and Earl of Forfar (but not "The Earl of Wessex" as that would still be Edward), and HIS son, if he has one, would be Viscount Severn, again, without the "the."


You can see this in action in the junior branches of the royal family. The Duke of Gloucester's heir is known as Earl of Ulster and his son Baron Culloden and The Duke of Kent's heir is Earl of St. Andrews and his son is Baron Downpatrick.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Will Alexander, Earl of Ulster inherit the title of Duke of Gloucester from his father, Prince Richard?

 

[An Ard Ri]

Lord Ulster is the heir apparent to the dukedom of Gloucester and his son ,Lord Culloden next inline.

 

[Somebody]

Once Edward becomes The Duke of edinburgh, the Earl of Wessex title will be a lower rank, so why couldn’t James use it as a courtesy title?

My reasoning would be that Earl of Wessex and Viscount Severn are not subsidiary titles to the duke of Edinburgh title. So, if the rule is that 'subsidiary titles' can be used, it would not apply; if it is just 'lower rank' it would indeed be no problem at all for James to use Edward's other title.

 

[JR76]

My reasoning would be that Earl of Wessex and Viscount Severn are not subsidiary titles to the duke of Edinburgh title. So, if the rule is that 'subsidiary titles' can be used, it would not apply; if it is just 'lower rank' it would indeed be no problem at all for James to use Edward's other title.

Many heirs to peerages use courtesy titles that weren't originally subsidiary titles to the highest of their titles. The Duke of Fife was known as the Earl of Southesk before acceding to the dukedom. The two titles don't even originate from the same family but was brought together by the marriage of his grandparents. Another example is the Duke of Norfolk who's heir uses the title of Earl of Arundel - a title that is 200 years older than the dukedom itself and again didn't even originate with the Howard family.
To my knowledge the heir can choose any title available as his courtesy title and its not that uncommon for them to change between generations.

 

[Somebody]

Many heirs to peerages use courtesy titles that weren't originally subsidiary titles to the highest of their titles. The Duke of Fife was known as the Earl of Southesk before acceding to the dukedom. The two titles don't even originate from the same family but was brought together by the marriage of his grandparents. Another example is the Duke of Norfolk who's heir uses the title of Earl of Arundel - a title that is 200 years older than the dukedom itself and again didn't even originate with the Howard family.
To my knowledge the heir can choose any title available as his courtesy title and its not that uncommon for them to change between generations.

Thanks! Good to know. That was my main doubt but if it's common practice among the British peers, I would indeed assume that James will be known as the Earl of Wessex once his father is granted the dukedom of Edinburgh.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

My reasoning would be that Earl of Wessex and Viscount Severn are not subsidiary titles to the duke of Edinburgh title. So, if the rule is that 'subsidiary titles' can be used, it would not apply; if it is just 'lower rank' it would indeed be no problem at all for James to use Edward's other title.

I am not sure what you mean by 'subsidiary title' if not one of lower rank, but how would it be different from the Brabourne case (as I mentioned in post #4764)?

 

[Somebody]

I am not sure what you mean by 'subsidiary title' if not one of lower rank, but how would it be different from the Brabourne case (as I mentioned in post #4764)?

Had missed your post explaining the same as JR76; i.e. that it doesn't matter when the 'lower' title was awarded.

I took subsidiary to be a lower titled tied to a more senior title. The royal typically are given three titles, in which cases one 'creation' includes all three titles, so the lower titles are tied to the senior titles. But apparently that is not a requirement and all 'lower' titles can be considered subsidiary titles to that specific holder (in case they have different hereditary rules that would mean that it could be a temporary constellation of titles; resulting in a title that at one point was a subsidiary title becoming a senior title again - although the other way around is more common).