Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Denville]

He could use Lord Kilkeel instead as his courtesy title if he wanted to, but it is not terribly flattering either (think Archie Kilkeel or Archie Dumbarton).


Of course, if he became an HRH, he could be simply Archie Sussex in a British school and that would actually sound nice, I think.

Its MOST usual to use the second title.. for the heir.. but I DO think that they really didn't think it through very well, with giving Harry the Dumbarton title. I'm sure it would have provoked jokes in the press and maybe at school for his son...I cant see anything wrong with Kilkeel but if he used it, I think the press would cotton onto the fact that it was because Dumbarton sounded like Dumb or Dumbo...
However I would say he's probalby not going to be an HRH wen Charles becomes king because the Sussexes are clealry moving away from the BRF

 

[Durham]

Its MOST usual to use the second title.. for the heir.. but I DO think that they really didn't think it through very well, with giving Harry the Dumbarton title. I'm sure it would have provoked jokes in the press and maybe at school for his son...I cant see anything wrong with Kilkeel but if he used it, I think the press would cotton onto the fact that it was because Dumbarton sounded like Dumb or Dumbo...
However I would say he's probalby not going to be an HRH wen Charles becomes king because the Sussexes are clealry moving away from the BRF

And Kilkeel is an Irish title & that can be problematic for obvious reasons.

 

[Denville]

And Kilkeel is an Irish title & that can be problematic for obvious reasons.

Northern Irish, and all British royal dukes (as far as I know) have a Scottish title, and a N Irish title as well as an English one. He coudl use it if he wanted to, but teh most usual set up is for the heir to use the second title.. ie the earldom.. and if Harry has a grandson, he could be known later on as Baron Kilkeel..

 

[Durham]

Northern Irish, and all British royal dukes (as far as I know) have a Scottish title, and a N Irish title as well as an English one. He coudl use it if he wanted to, but teh most usual set up is for the heir to use the second title.. ie the earldom.. and if Harry has a grandson, he could be known later on as Baron Kilkeel..

Well yes Northern Irish of course.

Yes British royal dukes do as you say but we all know how sensitive these things can be & always have been. The fact that there will never be a Northern Irish royal dukedom is symbolic of that surely.

 

[Somebody]

Northern Irish, and all British royal dukes (as far as I know) have a Scottish title, and a N Irish title as well as an English one. He coudl use it if he wanted to, but teh most usual set up is for the heir to use the second title.. ie the earldom.. and if Harry has a grandson, he could be known later on as Baron Kilkeel..

It is indeed most common but there is an exception: the Duke of Edinburgh doesn't have a Northern Irish subsidiary title and the expected next Duke of Edinburgh doesn't have one either - having a Welsh title instead:

Duke of Gloucester, Earl of Ulster, Baron Culloden: E, NI, S
Duke of Kent, Earl of St Andrews, Baron Downpatrick: E, S, NI
Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Merioneth, Baron Greenwich: S, W, E
Duke of York, Earl of Inverness, Baron Killyleagh: E, S, NI
Duke of Cambridge, Earl of Strathearn, Baron Carrickfergus: E, S, NI
Duke of Sussex, Earl of Dumbarton, Baron Kilkeel: E, S, NI

Edward is a special case; he is currently: Earl of Wessex, Earl of Forfar, Viscount Severn: E, S, E/W (so, when is granted a Scottish Dukedom - he will have 2 Scottish titles but no Northern Irish title).

So, the most common order is: English Dukedom, Scottish Earldom and Northern Irish barony - but it is not set in stone.

 

[Durham]

It is indeed most common but there is an exception: the Duke of Edinburgh doesn't have a Northern Irish subsidiary title and the expected next Duke of Edinburgh doesn't have one either - having a Welsh title instead:

Duke of Gloucester, Earl of Ulster, Baron Culloden: E, NI, S
Duke of Kent, Earl of St Andrews, Baron Downpatrick: E, S, NI
Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Merioneth, Baron Greenwich: S, W, E
Duke of York, Earl of Inverness, Baron Killyleagh: E, S, NI
Duke of Cambridge, Earl of Strathearn, Baron Carrickfergus: E, S, NI
Duke of Sussex, Earl of Dumbarton, Baron Kilkeel: E, S, NI

Edward is a special case; he is currently: Earl of Wessex, Earl of Forfar, Viscount Severn: E, S, E/W (so, when is granted a Scottish Dukedom - he will have 2 Scottish titles but no Northern Irish title).

So, the most common order is: English Dukedom, Scottish Earldom and Northern Irish barony - but it is not set in stone.

The Earl of Ulster title isn't exactly Northern Ireland but I take your point about the geographical spread. And the Gloucester dukedom was created nearly a century ago so the "Ulster" bit is understandable in its historical context. Obviously wouldn't be created today.

 

[Denville]

Well yes Northern Irish of course.

Yes British royal dukes do as you say but we all know how sensitive these things can be & always have been. The fact that there will never be a Northern Irish royal dukedom is symbolic of that surely.

I think that is because USUALLY though not always, the main title - the Dukedom...is an English one.. then followed by a Scottish one and a N Irish one...

 

[Durham]

I think that is because USUALLY though not always, the main title - the Dukedom...is an English one.. then followed by a Scottish one and a N Irish one...

Yes but also because it would be politically explosive to give a British prince a dukedom with a Northern Irish designation . That's a given surely.

Of Victoria's three younger sons one had a Scottish designation & one an Irish - Edinburgh & Connaught. Is Albany Scottish as well? Not sure about that.

 

[Somebody]

Yes but also because it would be politically explosive to give a British prince a dukedom with a Northern Irish designation . That's a given surely.

Of Victoria's three younger sons one had a Scottish designation & one an Irish - Edinburgh & Connaught. Is Albany Scottish as well? Not sure about that.

I looked it up and read that 'Albany' is the Gaelic name for Scotland.

 

[Durham]

I looked it up and read that 'Albany' is the Gaelic name for Scotland.

Thank you. I've heard Alba as an ancient name for Scotland before so I should have made the connection. It seems it is an ancient Scottish dukedom first conferred on a younger brother of Robert III of Scotland according to Wikipedia.

 

[AC21091968]

Creation of Marquessates and Subsidiary Title in Royal Peer

I got two questions about the Marquess's nobility rank, particularly in the Royal peerage setting.

Marquess is ranked below Duke, but ranked above Earl. From memory, The Sovereign has not created a Marquessates for royal family members, since George V, particularly for his German relatives who lived in the United Kingdom. For example, Prince Louis of Battenberg became the 1st Marquess of Milford Haven.

The last Marquess created by the British crown was the Marquess of Willingdon for Freeman Freeman-Thomas, who was a Liberal politician and colonial governor. This royal title became extinct.

My first question is that why hasn't The Sovereign (including Queen Elizabeth II, George VI) created Marquessates? In other words, why hasn't The Queen created Marquesses for Antony Armstrong-Jones (Eventually 1st Earl of Snowdon), The Hon. Angus Ogilvy (He did however decline an earldom), Princess Edward (Now Earl of Wessex)?

My second question is that why is the preferred next-highest subsidiary title of Royal Dukes appears to be an Earldom, rather than Marquessates? For example, the subsidiary titles for Duke of Cambridge are Earl of Strathearn and Baron Carrickfergus, despite the fact Marquess is ranked above Earl.

Wikipedia could not give an explanation. My only predicted reason is distinction from non-royal peerages.

Link to Wikipedia page for Marquesses in the United Kingdom, specifically under Peerage of the United Kingdom: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marquesses_in_the_United_Kingdom#Peerage_of_the_United_Kingdom

If anyone could give a possible reason, I would be very appreciated.

 

[An Ard Ri]

Thank you. I've heard Alba as an ancient name for Scotland before so I should have made the connection. It seems it is an ancient Scottish dukedom first conferred on a younger brother of Robert III of Scotland according to Wikipedia.

Henry Stuart,Lord Darnley was created Duke of Albany and Earl of Ross prior to his marriage to Mary Queen of Scots in 1565.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Marquess is ranked below Duke, but ranked above Earl. From memory, The Sovereign has not created a Marquessates for royal family members, since George V, particularly for his German relatives who lived in the United Kingdom. For example, Prince Louis of Battenberg became the 1st Marquess of Milford Haven.

Prince Louis of Battenberg had been naturalized as a British subject in 1868. The other relatives who were granted marquessates in 1917, the Duke of Teck and Prince Alexander of Battenberg, were British from birth, although I believe they did have dual nationality.

My first question is that why hasn't The Sovereign (including Queen Elizabeth II, George VI) created Marquessates? In other words, why hasn't The Queen created Marquesses for Antony Armstrong-Jones (Eventually 1st Earl of Snowdon), The Hon. Angus Ogilvy (He did however decline an earldom), Princess Edward (Now Earl of Wessex)?

My second question is that why is the preferred next-highest subsidiary title of Royal Dukes appears to be an Earldom, rather than Marquessates? For example, the subsidiary titles for Duke of Cambridge are Earl of Strathearn and Baron Carrickfergus, despite the fact Marquess is ranked above Earl.

Good question. It seems that since the reign of George II the dukedoms created for British princes have always been created with earldoms and baronies as their subsidiary titles. This is only a guess, but I suspect that is because, in Britain, the ranks of Earl and Baron are more ancient and remain more common today than the ranks of Marquess and Viscount.

 

[AC21091968]

Prince Louis of Battenberg had been naturalized as a British subject in 1868. The other relatives who were granted marquessates in 1917, the Duke of Teck and Prince Alexander of Battenberg, were British from birth, although I believe they did have dual nationality.




Good question. It seems that since the reign of George II the dukedoms created for British princes have always been created with earldoms and baronies as their subsidiary titles. This is only a guess, but I suspect that is because, in Britain, the ranks of Earl and Baron are more ancient and remain more common today than the ranks of Marquess and Viscount.

Thank you very much for your insight and opinion. It appears to me that the subsidiary titles of royal dukedoms are "two ranks" below the greater title (Duke, Earl, Baron), rather than "one rank" below (Duke, Marquess, Earl) Examples include:
The subsidiary titles for Duke of Edinburgh: Earl of Merioneth, Baron Greenwich
The subsidiary titles for Duke of Gloucester: Earl of Earl of Ulster, Baron Culloden

However, for a Royal Earl, his subsidiary title is "one rank" below the greater title. There is only one subsidiary title, unlike the royal dukedom with two. Examples include:
The subsidiary title for Earl of Wessex: Viscount Severn
The subsidiary title for Earl of Snowdon: Viscount Linley

I don't know if I am just overthinking or is there something else quite significant about these differences.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

However, for a Royal Earl, his subsidiary title is "one rank" below the greater title. There is only one subsidiary title, unlike the royal dukedom with two. Examples include:
The subsidiary title for Earl of Wessex: Viscount Severn
The subsidiary title for Earl of Snowdon: Viscount Linley

I don't know if I am just overthinking or is there something else quite significant about these differences.

This is again a guess, but perhaps Queen Elizabeth II, who created both of those earldoms, thought at the time that it would not be ideal for the eldest son of a royal prince or princess, who would use the highest subsidiary title of his father as a courtesy, to be a mere baron.

Following British custom, the eldest son of a viscount or baron does not use a courtesy peerage and is simply referred to as The Honourable, as are his younger brothers and sistesrs. There would be little practical reason for creating a second subsidiary title for the Earls of Snowdon or Wessex, as it would not be expected to be used at all.

 

[Denville]

Generally teh subsidiary title for an earl is a viscount, I don't think there is any particular reason for it. And of course sometimes people with a lower title such as Viscount or Baron, get further honors and are raised to an earldom or higher and then the older title of Viscount becomes the subsidiary title.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Generally teh subsidiary title for an earl is a viscount, I don't think there is any particular reason for it.

Yes, according to a listing in Debrett's, that is true for about two-thirds of eldest sons of earls.

 

[AC21091968]

This is again a guess, but perhaps Queen Elizabeth II, who created both of those earldoms, thought at the time that it would not be ideal for the eldest son of a royal prince or princess, who would use the highest subsidiary title of his father as a courtesy, to be a mere baron.

Following British custom, the eldest son of a viscount or baron does not use a courtesy peerage and is simply referred to as The Honourable, as are his younger brothers and sistesrs. There would be little practical reason for creating a second subsidiary title for the Earls of Snowdon or Wessex, as it would not be expected to be used at all.

Thank you for your explanation on the absence of courtesy peerage for viscount or baron, which explain why there is no need for a second subsidiary title for Earls. It would make sense to me that, the Queen doesn't want James, Viscount Severn to be a Baron, while his older sister is Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor (style as a daughter of an earl). However, had Edward and Sophie have younger sons, they would be styled as The Hon. X Mountbatten-Windsor, while younger daughters would still be styled Lady X Windsor. The address and style for the children of an earl confused me a lot ? ?

 

[Mbruno]

Thank you for your explanation on the absence of courtesy peerage for viscount or baron, which explain why there is no need for a second subsidiary title for Earls. It would make sense to me that, the Queen doesn't want James, Viscount Severn to be a Baron, while his older sister is Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor (style as a daughter of an earl). However, had Edward and Sophie have younger sons, they would be styled as The Hon. X Mountbatten-Windsor, while younger daughters would still be styled Lady X Windsor. The address and style for the children of an earl confused me a lot ? ?

Actually many earls also hold a subsidiary barony. For example, the Earl Spencer is also the Viscount Althorp, the Viscount Spencer and the Baron Spencer of Althorp.


Since, however, children of viscounts do not hold courtesy titles, the children of the eldest son of an earl who is a courtesy viscount are styled only "The Honourable [Forename] [Surname]".

 

[Kataryn]

IIRC the marquessate and the viscountecy were not "original" titles in the Uk (and before in England or Scotland) as historically they came for the medieval (6th to 11th century AD) usage of using this to mark a border earldom (marquessate, in latin Marchio or Marchisus) around the borders of the Holy Roman Empire. England or Scotland never had these, but there were the "Marcher Lords" at the border to Wales, most of the Earls.

From the 1200s the title of Marchese (Italian), Markgraf (German) Marquis (French) became part of the ranking system of High Nobility. England followed at the end of the 1300s, but it took up to 100 years before the title of Marquess became more common in England at some time later in Scotland.

I think it was to have something to grant to an Earl who was not yet up to a duke but the marquessate never had any lands to go with it, it always just an honorary title. Same with the Viscount,´more than a baron, but not yet an earl. Or the Baronet, more than a knight, but not a baron..


IMHO it's historically tradition to give "real" titles, that means titles that a one time meant the owner had to defend the king and his kingdom in his own realm - that were the Earls and Barons, later, the Dukes. Nobles who actually had political and military powers. While Marquesses and Viscounts were created later, "softer" titles for political personages and courtiers, as well as military commanders.

 

[Kataryn]

Actually many earls also hold a subsidiary barony, For example, the Earl Spencer is also the Viscount Althorp, the Viscount Spencer and the Baron Spencer of Althorp.


Since, however, children of viscounts do not hold courtesy titles, the children of the eldest son of an earl who is a courtesy viscount are styled only "The Honourable [Forename] [Surname]".

Makes one remember Diana, who was so happy when her grandfather died and her father became the Earl, as she became "Lady" Diana through that...

 

[Mbruno]

Makes one remember Diana, who was so happy when her grandfather died and her father became the Earl, as she became "Lady" Diana through that...

Yes, that is correct. Her titles/styles throughout her life were:

• 1 July 1961 – 9 June 1975: The Honourable Diana Frances Spencer
• 9 June 1975 – 29 July 1981: Lady Diana Frances Spencer
• 29 July 1981 – 28 August 1996: Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales
• 28 August 1996 – 31 August 1997: Diana, Princess of Wales

 

[Tatiana Maria]

IIRC the marquessate and the viscountecy were not "original" titles in the Uk (and before in England or Scotland) as historically they came for the medieval (6th to 11th century AD) usage of using this to mark a border earldom (marquessate, in latin Marchio or Marchisus) around the borders of the Holy Roman Empire. England or Scotland never had these, but there were the "Marcher Lords" at the border to Wales, most of the Earls.

From the 1200s the title of Marchese (Italian), Markgraf (German) Marquis (French) became part of the ranking system of High Nobility. England followed at the end of the 1300s, but it took up to 100 years before the title of Marquess became more common in England at some time later in Scotland.

I think it was to have something to grant to an Earl who was not yet up to a duke but the marquessate never had any lands to go with it, it always just an honorary title. Same with the Viscount,´more than a baron, but not yet an earl. Or the Baronet, more than a knight, but not a baron..


IMHO it's historically tradition to give "real" titles, that means titles that a one time meant the owner had to defend the king and his kingdom in his own realm - that were the Earls and Barons, later, the Dukes. Nobles who actually had political and military powers. While Marquesses and Viscounts were created later, "softer" titles for political personages and courtiers, as well as military commanders.

I agree with you. For a dynasty as ancient and relatively continuous as the British royal family, it makes sense to give priority to the titles with the earliest origins in the British Isles.

Actually many earls also hold a subsidiary barony. For example, the Earl Spencer is also the Viscount Althorp, the Viscount Spencer and the Baron Spencer of Althorp.

Since, however, children of viscounts do not hold courtesy titles, the children of the eldest son of an earl who is a courtesy viscount are styled only "The Honourable [Forename] [Surname]".

I know, but we were referring to fresh creations of earldoms for members of the royal family who did not previously hold any peerage. In these cases, there is no pressing need to create them an earl, a viscount and a baron, given that the last title will remain unused if the family follows the British custom for children of viscounts.

Having said that, previous British monarchs did create subsidiary peerages knowing they would never be used, such as the current Duke of Edinburgh's earldom and barony.

Yes, that is correct, Her titles/styles throughout her life were:

• 1 July 1961 – 9 June 1975: The Honourable Diana Frances Spencer
• 9 June 1975 – 29 July 1981: Lady Diana Frances Spencer
• 29 July 1981 – 28 August 1996: Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales
• 28 August 1996 – 31 August 1997: Diana, Princess of Wales

I believe she used just Diana, without her middle name, even before her marriage.

 

[Durham]

IIRC the marquessate and the viscountecy were not "original" titles in the Uk (and before in England or Scotland) as historically they came for the medieval (6th to 11th century AD) usage of using this to mark a border earldom (marquessate, in latin Marchio or Marchisus) around the borders of the Holy Roman Empire. England or Scotland never had these, but there were the "Marcher Lords" at the border to Wales, most of the Earls.

IMHO it's historically tradition to give "real" titles, that means titles that a one time meant the owner had to defend the king and his kingdom in his own realm - that were the Earls and Barons, later, the Dukes. Nobles who actually had political and military powers. While Marquesses and Viscounts were created later, "softer" titles for political personages and courtiers, as well as military commanders.

You make some good points. The titles of marquess & viscount always seem rather non British & more continental. More of an import & unnecessary.

Earl of course is the really ancient title with roots going back into Anglo Saxon England. They were very powerful men, kings in all but name in their areas.

 

[Mbruno]

As far as I understand, the English dukedoms that date back to the Middle Ages were mostly (or all?) created for descendants of kings. Even the first duke of Norfolk, despite not being a royal duke himself, was nonetheless a descendant in maternal line of King Edward I, whose fifth son was the first Earl of Norfolk.


Who was the first English duke without a royal connection (either by blood or by marriage) ?

 

[Gawin]

Actually many earls also hold a subsidiary barony. For example, the Earl Spencer is also the Viscount Althorp, the Viscount Spencer and the Baron Spencer of Althorp.


Since, however, children of viscounts do not hold courtesy titles, the children of the eldest son of an earl who is a courtesy viscount are styled only "The Honourable [Forename] [Surname]".

The barony predates the earldom. The first Earl Spencer was created Viscount Spencer and Baron Spencer in 1761 then upgraded to Earl Spencer and Viscount Althorp in 1765.

 

[Durham]

As far as I understand, the English dukedoms that date back to the Middle Ages were mostly (or all?) created for descendants of kings. Even the first duke of Norfolk, despite not being a royal duke himself, was nonetheless a descendant in maternal line of King Edward I, whose fifth son was the first Earl of Norfolk.


Who was the first English duke without a royal connection (either by blood or by marriage) ?

Bedford I think. I'll double check.

Yes - Bedford & then Devonshire. Both as reward for supporting William & Mary.

 

[Gawin]

As far as I understand, the English dukedoms that date back to the Middle Ages were mostly (or all?) created for descendants of kings. Even the first duke of Norfolk, despite not being a royal duke himself, was nonetheless a descendant in maternal line of King Edward I, whose fifth son was the first Earl of Norfolk.

Who was the first English duke without a royal connection (either by blood or by marriage) ?

It depends on your definition of "royal connection." All of the dukes created in the peerage of England (prior to the Act of Union 1707) were descended from the Plantagenent kings.

For example, John Dudley, the first "nonroyal" duke (Northumberland, created 1551) was a descendant of Edward I.

George Villiers, the second (Buckingham, created 1623) was descendant of Henry III.

The third, George Monck (Albemarle, created 1660) was the descendant of an illegitimate son of Edward IV.

But their royal connection were distant and had nothing to do with their elevation to the peerage.

 

[Gawin]

Bedford I think. I'll double check.

Yes - Bedford & then Devonshire. Both as reward for supporting William & Mary.

But several other non-royal dukedoms (now extinct) predated Bedford and Devonshire.

 

[Durham]

But several other non-royal dukedoms (now extinct) predated Bedford and Devonshire.

I was thinking of existing dukedoms. Which ones predate Bedord?