Royal Dukes, Royal Duchies and Royal Ducal Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Iluvbertie]

The titles could be removed - if they commited treason but that is about all.

 

[Royal Fan]

Could the Titles be reinvented say HRH Baron of Glouchester HRH Viscount of Kent and when HRH The Earl of Wessex gets his Father Title will he get his others too?

 

[Iluvbertie]

Could the Titles be reinvented say HRH Baron of Glouchester HRH Viscount of Kent and when HRH The Earl of Wessex gets his Father Title will he get his others too?

Under the 1917 Letters Patent the Gloucester and Kent lines cease to have the HRH prefix after the death of the current HRH's in those lines.

With the call the reduce the number of HRHs and the example set with Edward's children not using theirs there is virtually no chance that the HRH will be given to the Gloucester and Kent lines in the future (of course that assumes that something dreadful doesn't happen and the Gloucester or even Kent lines actually inherit the throne).

As for Edward - if he did inherit the title directly i.e. Charles, William, Harry and Andrew all predeceased Philip with no additional legitimate male heirs (meaning Beatrice becomes the Queen's heir) then Edward would inherit all of his father's titles.

As the more likely scenario is that Edward will have to wait until both the Queen and Philip are deceased and Charles (or possibly even William) is King then they will probably only issue LPs for the Duke of Edinburgh title itself as he already as an Earldom and a Barony - Wessex and Severn.

 

[Iluvbertie]

When the current Dukes of Kent and Gloucester die, their titles will revert to the crown(minus the lesser titles; eg Baron Downpatrick, Earl of Ulster, which have been given to the sons of the current dukes.They will revert upon the deaths of those holders) William and Harry's wives might be known as P'cess William and P'cess Henry until Kent and Gloucester become available. In that way the "pool" of royal Dukes is not widened and criticism is avoided.

Why do you think that the titles revert to the Crown?

Like all titles the LPs creating them allow for inheritance through the 'heirs male' and when George V gave those titles to his sons he knew that he had already changed the LPs in 1917 restricting the HRH to his male line grandchildren (through his sons only).

These titles will cease to be held by HRH when the current holder dies but they won't revert to the Crown. The current holders' heir will take those titles and pass them down - so at least two generations for both titles before they can revert as the current holders both have male line grandsons to inherit the title (with the added inheritance line for Kent of Prince Michael's line).

 

[Lumutqueen]

Okay so let me get this straight.
When the DofE dies Edward wil not get the title immediately and it'll revert back to the crown so if Charles' king it'll belong to him?
And Edward can only recieve the title DofE if he's given it by Charles or William?

 

[Iluvbertie]

In the normal course of events yes.

Due to the ages of the various people it is assumed that Philip will probably die first, in which case Charles becomes Duke of Edinburgh etc. The the Queen will die in which case Charles will become King and the Duke of Edinburgh title will merge with the Crown and, according to what was announced in 1999, Charles has agreed to regrant the title to Edward.

It is assumed that if William inherits the throne, rather than Charles, due to Charles predeceasing his mother, then the same arrangement will occur.

If the Queen dies before Philip then Charles will become King and still inherit the Edinburgh title when his father dies and again it is available for regrant.

If, Charles, William, Harry and Andrew all die before Philip then Edward would inherit the title directly.

If Charles and William die before the Queen and Philip but after William has a legitimate daughter (by no son) then the Edinburgh title would be inherited by Harry and not be available to go to Edward at all.

The same scenario above would apply if Charles, William and Harry all died with either William or Harry having a daughter but no sons as then Andrew would inherit the title directly and it would have to wait until Andrew died for it to become available (of course if Andrew remarried and had a son then that son would inherit that title - along with York).

In the normal course of events Charles will recreate Edward DoE at some time in the future and the title will pass to James and so on down.

But there are scenarios by which the title won't be available to reach Edward at all, or in which he could inherit it directly, although these are far less likely to occur.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Thank you very much iluvbertie.

So what happens to Duke of York and Earl Of Wessex?
With DofY merge with the crown unless Andrew has a legitimate son?
Earl of Wessex will presumable go to James?

 

[Iluvbertie]

Duke of York will revert to the Crown if Andrew doesn't have a legitimate son. (It can only merge if Andrew were to become King - semantics I know).
Wessex will go to James as he is Edward's legitimate son.
The only way either of the above don't happen is if Parliament, if and when it changes the law of succession to the Crown to allow gender blind succession were also to make all titles gender blind successsion, in which case Beatrice would inherit York and Louise Wessex (Edinburgh).

 

[Lumutqueen]

Thank you. Iluvbertie, is there anyway that Charles can take away the title DofY or EofW from Edward and Andrew before they die?
And what about Princess Royal.

I'm just thinking because William could possible have children before Andrew, Edward and Anne pass away.

 

[Iluvbertie]

No.

Andrew's title will probably revert as he has no sons but Edward does have a son so that title will pass to James.

William's children won't get those titles while Andrew and Edward are alive (the Princess Royal title can only go to the eldest daughter of the monarch and not during the lifetime of a holder so William couldn't create a daughter Princess Royal while Anne was alive but could do so the very next day - although I doubt if he would do that.)

The titles of Andrew and Edward have the remainder that they will pass to sons and there is no way to stop that. In time the Edinburgh/Wessex title should pass out of the hands of someone with the HRH, just as the Gloucester and Kent titles will do so with the next generation. The only way York doesn't revert is if Andrew has a son and as he isn't married and doesn't seem to be interested in remarrying that is highly doubtful.

 

[Paul992234177]

Lancaster

She only holds it as a style, "Her Majesty the Queen, Duke of Lancaster", while in the duchy on official business. As Sovereign, she cannot retain a peerage because she is the fount of honour and source of all enoblement.

the queen does not hold the peerage of Duke of Lancaster. a medieval King (cannot remember which) had a son who was Earl of Lancaster (peerage) he made his lands into the County Palatinate of Lancaster which is almost like a seperate country. the Earl (later made Duke) could appoint officials and collect the monies from people who die intestate. The Title "Duke of Lancaster" is to signify this position. She is Duke because she holds a masculine position (at coronations female holders of peerages wear the robes of a peeress but the coronet of a peer)

 

[pacomartin]

Almost all dukes have secondary titles that they can give to their son or grandson as a courtesy title. It has always seemed strange to me that the son of the Prince of Wales does not have a courtesy title.
Should William marry before his grandmother dies it is presumed that William will receive a dukedome. As far as I can see, the only real reason to give him a title is so that his wife will have a proper title. Without a title her title would be HRH Princess William. The title of Duke of Clarence has a double precedent. It was the title given to Eddy, the oldest son of Edward VII (who was POW at the time). It is also the title that the last King William had before he became king. It is also the name of the house that he will eventually live in.
It seems that a simpler solution would be to change the standard for the style of a married woman. Assuming that William's wife is named Katherine, then she could go by HRH Princess Katherine until she become HRH Katherine, Princess of Wales. This would alleviate problems of her using the title of Duchess of Clarence possibly for 10 to 15 years before she changes her title.
I know these traditions go back centuries, but it is not totally without precedent. Princess Alice used that title for about 30 years after she was widowed, even though her proper title was Dowager Duchess of Gloucester.It seems to me that all sorts of changes are being considered, like absolute primogeniture, and the possibility of daughters inheriting peerages. It would seem like changing the style of wives is relatively minor one.
It would also take care of the problem of Harry. His wife would just be known as HRH Princess firstname. Then Harry could become the Duke of Gloucester or the Duke of York . Although it seems as if the Duke of Gloucester would be more appropriate since his great uncle will probably die first. That way the Duke of York title could be given to William's second son.

 

[Connie Cutmantle]

It would also take care of the problem of Harry. His wife would just be known as HRH Princess firstname. Then Harry could become the Duke of Gloucester or the Duke of York . Although it seems as if the Duke of Gloucester would be more appropriate since his great uncle will probably die first. That way the Duke of York title could be given to William's second son.

Pacomartin I think you have made an excellent point about moving the goal posts so to speak with regards to a prospective wife of William or Harry being permitted to use their own christian name in conjunction with their style and and title as Princesses! But, unless some catastrophe occurs and the Earl and Ulster and his son Lord Culloden die in Harry's lifetime without any other male heirs, the Dukedom of Gloucester will perpetuate for the foreseeable future for at least another two generations, thus it can not and will not be re-created for Harry unless the Dukedom reverts to the crown....which at the moment seems highly unlikely....touch wood!

Thank you for your very interesting comments, as they have provided more food for thought and this issue of titles for William and Harry seems to be one that runs and runs!!!!

 

[wbenson]

There are two heirs to the Dukedom of Gloucester, so that title probably won't be free for quite some time.

Edit:
See what happens when I forget to hit submit?

 

[cmkrcwi]

She would not become HRH Katherine, Princess of Wales. She would become HRH The Princess of Wales.

 

[Lumutqueen]

She would not become HRH Katherine, Princess of Wales. She would become HRH The Princess of Wales.

I always thought that she would become HRH Princess William of Wales, until he inherits the title himself.
Then she would be HRH The Princess of Wales, like Diana was.

 

[Iluvbertie]

That is correct. On marriage William's wife will be HRH Princess William of Wales unless the Queen gives him a title at marriage e.g. Duke of xxxx in which case she would be known as HRH The Duchess of xxxx.

When Charles becomes King, William will automatically become HRH The Duke of Cornwall and thus his wife would be known as HRH The Duchess of Cornwall and xxxxx (as per the precedent of Queen Mary from Jan - Nov 1901 when she was the Duchess of Cornwall and York). Only when and if Charles creates William Prince of Wales would any wife become Princess of Wales.

Kate, or whomever, would never be correctly entitled to be called Princess Katherine as that indicates a Princess born with that title not one who married into the royal family (the Queen allowed her aunt to use Princess Alice of Gloucester rather than Dowager Duchess but that was an exception and not the normal procedure).

 

[Lumutqueen]

Thank you very much for confirming my thoughts. Wasn't Princess Alice allowed to stay that way so she wouldn't be confused with the present Duchess of Gloucster.

 

[Zonk]

Yes, Princess Alice requested permission from the Queen to style herelf Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester after the death of her husband The Duke of Gloucester to differentiate herself from the new Duchess.

She followed the precedent sent by Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent after her son, The Duke of Kent married Katharine Worsley and she became The Duchess of Kent. But I would think it would be a little different since Marina was actually a Princess of the Royal Blood.

But either way, permission was asked and received.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The situation with Marina was different as she had been born Princess Marina whereas Alice was born Lady Alice (or was that the Honourable ...) so Marina simply asked to revert to her birth name whereas Alice asked to use a name that had never actually been hers. The situations aren't actually the same as Alice asked really for a promotion.

 

[Lumutqueen]

She was born
The Lady Alice Christabel Montagu Douglas Scott.
She was allowed to keep her title as a british princess as a favour from the queen. The cases are similar in ways.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Similar maybe but one was only reverting to her maiden name and thus was using a name that she had always had in the same way that any other woman is always able to use her maiden status but the other was asking to use a title she had never held before in her life either before or after her marriage so she was promoted.

 

[Connie Cutmantle]

This is a tricky situation to discuss and may sound like a matter of semantics...but a commoner or Hon. who marries into the a higher titled family is never entitled to use her own Christian/given name in conjunction with her husband's title e.g :- Lady Randolph Churchill was never formally known as Lady Jennie Churchill....the examples are too manifold to give here. But if a woman of the rank of Lady (e.g the daughter of an Earl, Marquess or Duke marries a man of equal rank she is entitled to use her own given name and her husband's surname in conjunction with her birthright title). The same principle applies to women who marry Princes of equal or unequal rank to themselves.

Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester never had the 'right' to call herself as such until after 1975 or 1976, where after she only used the title by 'courtesy' strictly speaking, I am afraid I can not remember precisely the year the Royal decree/letters warrant were issued, anyway.... she was technically and officially for the sake of debate in fact HRH Princess Henry, Duchess of Gloucester from the moment she married until the day she died....the change to Princess Alice's style only came about because she apparently loathed being known as HRH the 'Dowager' Duchess of Gloucester officially and in general terms, and preferred to find an alternative! The reason she had to find and alternative form of style and address was because her daughter in law became HRH the Duchess of Gloucester when Henry died in 1974....to have two HRH Duchesses of Gloucester would have lead to great confusion thus the use of Dowager to differentiate the widowed from the extant wife of the in situ Duke became an essential necessity! God this sounds complicated but it does I hope make sense?

However, this rule of thumb and tradition does applies across the spectrum... all living widows of deceased title holders are differentiated in style from the de facto wife of the living title holder as well as one another! At one stage, there were four widows(including an ex-wife) of Dukes of Marlborough and a wife of the incumbent Duke alive at the same time....the 'Dowager' adage was used by one and the rest used their Christians names followed by their dead/former husbands' title....hence Jane, Duchess of Marlborough,Frances Duchess of Marlborough, Bertha Duchess of Marlborough (officially she chose to be know as Bertha, Marchioness of Blandford), Lillian, Duchess of Marlborough (she was the de facto Dowager Duchess) and the Duchess of Marlborough (Consuelo), her name was never used formally as she was 'the' Duchess! Anyway... this is just an example of how complicated titles and styles may appear.........going back to Alice and.......

Princess Marina having been born an HRH had a choice and could have adopted her husband's title and name becoming HRH Princess George, Duchhess of Kent (just like Chelsy Jones from down the road marry Harry Smith and becoming Mrs Harry Smith) but because Marina was a Princess by birth, she was entitled to use her christian name in conjunction with her own title by 'right' and her husband's titles as she pleased. Generally women do or at least did until quite recently adopt their husband's name in full..being known say,as an example as Mrs Harry Smith and in the event of her becoming a widow she would then become known as Mrs Chelsy Smith! Until the Duke of Kent's death I believe Marina chose to be be known officially simply as HRH the Duchess of Kent and that she continued to be known as such until her elder son married Katharine Worsley (who at the moment of her marriage became HRH Princess Edward, Duchess of Kent known generally as HRH the Duchess of Kent)... thereafter Marina became known officially as HRH Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent to differentiate.....even though she had always been a de facto Princess Marina regardless of this fact.

With regards to Alice Gloucester......she was never known as or by the style rightfully or officially of Princess Alice until she and the Queen agreed to it as a 'courtesy', before then, she was always officially HRH Princess Henry, Duchess of Gloucester and generally known as HRH the Duchess of Gloucester, HRH the Dowager Duchess of Gloucester or 'unofficially and incorrectly) HRH Princess Alice, Dichess of Gloucester.

I guess that this confusion ultimately stems from everyone calling Diana - Princess Diana - a title which was neither officially correct or appropriate technically!

Goodness I hope this makes some semblance of sense!?!?!

 

[cmkrcwi]

But Marina's husband's title was never Prince George, Duke of Kent. It was HRH The Duke of Kent. After his untimely passing, it would have been incorrect for her to be styled HRH Princess George, Duchess of Kent. She could have been HRH Marina, Duchess of Kent or HRH Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent.

 

[Hereditary Thane]

Connie Cutmantle, and cmkrcwi, thank you for your exposition. I think however that we are forgetting that customs change and general usage is nearly always different from strict court protocol. In these matters the sovereign has the power to show her charity or lack of it.

It isn't the nobility which have to conform to these conventions, as you say if Jane Smith marries John Brown she is Mrs John Brown, and continues to be so as his relict. Should they be divorced she is Mrs Jane Brown. The wife of a knight is in reality a dame (as is the wife of a baronet, not a baronetess) and was up until the late 18th century an old fashioned address for gentlewomen of some age. Knights and baronets are great commoners not noblemen. Some peers do hold knighthoods and baronetcies.

Lady, in respect to daughters of the high nobility (earls and upwards) is a mere social convention, and the style The Lady in regards to daughters of dukes seems to have been an affectation of ducal families. The appellation, Honourable is not a title either. We shouldn't be too pedantic about these things, but they are worth observing if only to prevent offense or embarrassment. But to remove the style HRH from the mother of your grandchildren shows more regard for deranged courtiers than the real world.

Princess Alice, Duchess Dowager of Glouscter served the crown well, and as I understand it was not the duchess dowager's petition: it was suggested to her as an acknowledgement of her services. In the same manner as Princess Alexandra was made DGCVO and lady of the Garter.

I recall being at a reception (obviously not in England) when a somewhat flustered American lady was presented to an ex monarch. She muttered something about not knowing how to address him. "Oh call me *****" (his Christian name) was the regal response. Good for him!

 

[Connie Cutmantle]

Thak you Thane for your explanation of Princess Alice's stance on the issue of 'Dowager'....I had always wandered about the veracity of that!!!!!

 

[claypoint2]

Connie Cutmantle, thank you for your comments, which I believe are crystal clear. I would offer only a slight correction to the above. As a matter of formal usage (which is less and less common these days), when the husband of Mrs Harry Smith dies, she remains Mrs Harry Smith until she dies or remarries. Her name would become Mrs Chelsy Smith only if she divorced him. More correctly, she would be called Mrs Chelsy Jones Smith in that case.

 

[Connie Cutmantle]

Thank you Claypoint 2! I apologise regarding the point about widows.....I based this on the widows I have known who have chosen to use their own fist names.....sorry to have misled anyone into thinking this was a 'cast in iron' tradition!

 

[branchg]

With marriage to a Prince of the UK, Lady Alice Montagu-Douglas-Scott became HRH The Princess Henry, Duchess of Gloucester. With her husband's death, she remained a princess of the UK by marriage and was permitted by The Queen to use the courtesy style of HRH Princess Alice as the widow of a son of The Sovereign.

Marina was born HRH Princess Marina of Greece & Denmark, a style she relinquished with her marriage to HRH The Prince George, Duke of Kent. With her husband's death, she was allowed the style of HRH Princess Marina in the same manner as Alice later was, even though she was born a princess, it was not recognized in the UK. She was HRH The Princess George, Duchess of Kent with her marriage.

 

[branchg]

But Marina's husband's title was never Prince George, Duke of Kent. It was HRH The Duke of Kent. After his untimely passing, it would have been incorrect for her to be styled HRH Princess George, Duchess of Kent. She could have been HRH Marina, Duchess of Kent or HRH Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent.

She was and remained "HRH The Princess George" as the wife of a son of The Sovereign for life. She retained her ducal style as "HRH The Duchess of Kent" until her son married, at which point she would be "HRH The Dowager Duchess of Kent" as a widow. With marriage, she was HRH Marina, Duchess of Kent (or HRH Marina, Dowager Duchess of Kent as a widow).

The Queen allowed her to style herself HRH Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent, as she did later for Alice, to acknowledge their service and position as the widows of sons of The Sovereign.