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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
It is in today's DM in the article on the Queen's godchildren and relatives born in during her reign - under Peter Philips entry, explaining why he was the first non-royal member of the royal family in over 500 years.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...gallery-relatives-godchildren-born-reign.html

25 Peter Mark Andrew Phillips.BORN: 15 November, 1977, to Princess Anne and Captain Mark Phillips. NAPPY NOTE: The first Royal technically born a commoner in 500 years after his father declined a title and Anne turned down a duchy. SUCCESSION: 11th.
 
Last edited:
I think Princess Royal is a lovely title. It's like the holder's not just a Princess; she's the Princess Royal. Kinda like being a Princess squared.
 
I don't think Anne was ever offered a dukedom in her own right, especially since she was adamant at the time of her marriage to Mark that she would support his decision to remain a commoner, rather than an Earl.

The Queen reportedly offered to elevate Peter and Zara to the rank and style of HRH Prince/Princess, but Anne declined that as well, wanting her children to have a normal upbringing without the burden of being royal.
 
When reading this the other day I was struck by the mention of her turning down a dukedom in her own right as I had never heard that before - doesn't mean it wasn't offered of course but to my knowledge this was the first time it had been stated.

It was, of course, also reported in the DM - not the most reliable of sources for royal stories.
 
I don't think Anne was ever offered a dukedom in her own right, especially since she was adamant at the time of her marriage to Mark that she would support his decision to remain a commoner, rather than an Earl.

The Queen reportedly offered to elevate Peter and Zara to the rank and style of HRH Prince/Princess, but Anne declined that as well, wanting her children to have a normal upbringing without the burden of being royal.

I cannot imagine Anne wanting her children to have any titles, as the children of an earl or a duchess, let alone be burdened with being HRH. She has always made a great point of saying her children are commoners who just happen to have The Queen as a grandmother.

If the Queen consented to Edwards children being styled as the children of an Earl it would seem off to elevate Peter and Zara to HRH, especially when it has been said for years that there is a wish to pare down the size of the royal family. Sounds like DM rubish.
 
Last edited:
If the Queen consented to Edwards children being styled as the children of an Earl it would seem off to elevate Pater and Zara to HRH, especially when it has been said for years that there is a wish to pare down the size of the royal family. Sounds like DM rubish.

The Queen's offer, if in fact it ever took place, was probably made when Anne became pregnant with her first child. I do not believe she would have made the offer after the birth of Peter and Zara.

The decision to eventually downsize the royal family hasn't actually been made at this time. James and Louise remain HRH by right of the 1917 Letters Patent, however, at their parents' request, they are not using their royal styles.
 
cepe said:
And there is certainly nothing flimsy or girlish about the Princess and if she wanted a title, she would ask and, I think, get it. But she wouldn't want either her parents or Prince Charles to break a promise

Anne said in an interview that, as the only girl in a family of boys, there were certain assumptions as to what girls did in the royal family, and she doesn't think she fit it very conveniently. She would have probably been regarded as a tomboy, and she wasn't terribly interested in the rather more girly aspects of life. :)
 
Last edited:
Once the dukedoms etc are vacant can't the Queen re-issue them to someone else?


LaRae
 
The dukedoms will not become vacant. The eldest son of the current Duke of Kent inherits the title. What I was saying was that they will no longer carry out royal duties
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Once the dukedoms etc are vacant can't the Queen re-issue them to someone else?
LaRae

When a Peerage title becomes extinct (no heirs to inherit it) or merges with the Crown (if the holder becomes Monarch), then the Sovereign is indeed free to issue new creations of the title. However, that's not what will happen to he Dukedoms of Kent and Gloucester: they will merely stop being Royal Dukedoms, but since both the current Duke of Kent and the Duke of Gloucester have male issue, the Dukedoms will be inherited by their respective eldest sons.

A Royal Dukedom is a Dukedom held by the Monarch's Consort, the Monarch's sons and male-line grandsons. A Royal peerage title (usually Dukedom) has precedence over all other titles. For instance, the Duke of Cambridge title may have been created just two years ago, yet it has precedence over the Duke of Norfolk title which is substantially older. The Earl of Wessex title also has precedence over higher peerage titles - Marquisates and Dukedoms - simply because it's a royal peerage title.

When such a Dukedom in inherited by people more distantly related to the Monarch (great-grandchildren for instance), it becomes an ordinary Dukedom and takes precedence by normal peerage rules (first, by ranking - Dukes, Marquises, Earls, etcetera - then by the date of creation).
 
The CC does refer to her, on occasions as a peer - e.g. The Queen, The Duke of Lancaster...
 
The CC does refer to her, on occasions as a peer - e.g. The Queen, The Duke of Lancaster...

That's true. And I believe when in the Duchy of Lancaster they refer to her as the Duke of Lancaster (not Duchess - always Duke, for a King OR a Queen regnant).

Also in the Channel Islands she is the Duke of Normandy, like Charles is referred to as the Duke of Rothesay when in Scotland.

So really she is a Queen but also has lesser titles of Duke and Duchess (and Countess and Baroness too, from Philip's subsidiary peerages).
 
The Duke of Lancaster isn't a peerage title as such any more though. It's part of the titles of the Monarch - along with the Duke of Normandy, etcetera - ever since it merged with the Crown back when it was a peerage title. It's not even counted among the Dukedoms in the Peerage of England (or any other, for that matter).
 
Last edited:
The argument as to whether or not the Duchy of Lancaster is a peerage was made awhile back in the conversation regarding Camilla's future title. I think the consensus reached was that it's not technically a peerage, more a courtesy title used by the monarch.
 
There is nothing 'courtesy' about it.

It is a title held by the monarch and only the monarch.

A 'courtesy' title is one the person is allowed to hold but isn't really theirs but someone else's e.g. The Earl of Ulster is actually also The Duke of Gloucester but his elder son and heir uses Earl of Ulster as a courtesy to show that he is the heir.

The Duke of Lancaster is a substantive title held by The Queen and used when dealing with the Duchy of Lancaster business, along with her title of The Queen - and as she is the one who approves the CC I am sure that she knows what she is doing in allowing herself to be referred to as The Duke of Lancaster.

A title that has merged with the Crown is no longer in existance and can be regranted. The Duke of Lancaster title can't be regranted as it is an automatic title held by the monarch.
 
Can a Queen consort use the title of Duchess of Lancaster?

That would be a solution for the Duchess of Cornwall's dilemma (although I prefer to see her as Her Majesty the Queen).
 
A title that has merged with the Crown is no longer in existance and can be regranted. The Duke of Lancaster title can't be regranted as it is an automatic title held by the monarch.
The Duke of Lancaster title merged with the Throne when its last holder (as a peerage title, obviously) became King. Since then, the Duchy of Lancaster has been providing the Monarch with income. And as head of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Monarch is called the Duke of Lancaster.

My point was that since the title merged with Crown (and all the peerage titles a person possesses at the time of his/her accession automatically merge with the Crown) and after it was decreed the title would belong to the Monarch, it ceased to be a peerage title. Nowhere, not in one single list of all titles in the United Kingdom in whatever peerage will you find a mention of the Dukedom or Duchy of Lancaster. At least, not in any credible ones.
 
Can a Queen consort use the title of Duchess of Lancaster?

That would be a solution for the Duchess of Cornwall's dilemma (although I prefer to see her as Her Majesty the Queen).

I don't think there is a straightforward answer to that question simply because such a situation has never taken place yet.

It is generally agreed the Duke of Lancaster cannot be considered a proper peerage title. Normally, a woman shares all of her husband's titles and styles, thus if the King were a Duke of Lancaster as a Peer, his wife would automatically be the Duchess. However, the Sovereign - as fount of all honours - cannot hold a peerage title. That means the rules that would normally apply to peerage titles don't work here.

My personal opinion is that it would be wrong for the Duchess of Cornwall to be known as the Duchess of Lancaster simply because the title (in whatever form, the Duke or the Duchess) belongs to the Sovereign only. In that respect, it is similar to the Dutch title The Prince(ss) of Orange: it belongs to the Heir(ess) Apparent only, and never to his/her spouse. Thus, Princess Maxima - the wife of the current Prince of Orange - isn't the Princess of Orange. This said, if King Charles said that it is his wife's desire to be addressed to as the Duchess of Lancaster, then it would be so.


I should also note that while Queen Victoria (and Queen Elizabeth now) use the male version of the title - the Duke of Lancaster, the female version does exist. During the reign of Mary I, the feathers on the official seal of the Duchy bore the letters M.R.D.L, which stood for Maria Regina Ducissa Lancastriae (Mary, Queen, Duchess of Lancaster).
 
There is nothing 'courtesy' about it.
It is a title held by the monarch and only the monarch.
Sorry, Iluvbertie, I misspoke. Thank you for correcting me.
I meant to say that it is more a styling (not a courtesy title), and not a title in itself. An individual who holds the title of Duke (or Duchess in her own right) is a member of the peerage. The Queen, as the source of all titles, cannot be a member of the peerage, therefore she cannot hold a title that is a peerage - therefore the Duke of Lancaster is a styling and not a title in itself.

As you pointed out, the current Earl of Ulster holds his title by courtesy through his being the Duke of Gloucester's heir apparent. However, in the event of the Duchy of Gloucester going extinct or merging with the crown, one day the Earldom of Ulster could be created by itself, or the Duchy of Gloucester created without the Earldom of Ulster. The Duchy of Lancaster cannot go extinct or merge with the crown, and cannot be created separate of the crown, suggesting that it in itself is not a title the monarch holds but rather a styling associated with land.

Can a Queen consort use the title of Duchess of Lancaster?
This is what the debate was in regards to her future titles. That she would be the Queen consort regardless, but that she could use one of Charles' lesser titles, i.e. Duchess of Lancaster, as she does now.

I should also note that while Queen Victoria (and Queen Elizabeth now) use the male version of the title - the Duke of Lancaster, the female version does exist.
Victoria (I believe) used the male version because she decided that the title "Duchess" was in reference to a Duke's wife and thus used only by courtesy. As she held the Duchy of Lancaster in her own right (regardless of whether it's a title or a styling) she didn't want to be seen as lesser.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
:previous:
You are quite right on this. I merely pointed out that while Victoria and Elizabeth II have used the male form of the title, previous Queens Regnant (definitely, Mary I, Elizabeth II and, if I am not mistaken, Queen Anne and Mary II as well) have all used the female form.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I read she used the title of Duchess of Lancaster to travel incognito through Europe.

Well, as the Monarch's will is the only necessary requirement to creat a title, it's possible to say that Queen Victoria set a precedent for the title of Duchess of Lancaster?
 
Last edited:
You are quite right on this. I merely pointed out that while Victoria and Elizabeth II have used the male form of the title, previous Queens Regnant (definitely, Mary I, Elizabeth II and, if I am not mistaken, Queen Anne and Mary II as well) have all used the female form.

Oh, yeah. I wasn't trying to disregard what you'd said, merely supplement it - although I would argue that Mary II would be a special case; you can't have two Dukes of Lancaster.

Actually, if Mary II and William III used Duchess and Duke of Lancaster respectively, then there's a precedent for both titles being used at the same time and therefore we could argue that Camilla, as consort to the king (when Charles succeeds) is entitled to be called the Duchess as the Duke's wife.
 
^^^^
Well not a really good precedent since William & Mary were co-monarchs, not monarch and consort.
 
The argument as to whether or not the Duchy of Lancaster is a peerage... it's not technically a peerage, more a courtesy title used by the monarch.
It is a style used by The Sovereign when conducting Duchy business as the Dukedom itself merged with the Crown. It is not a courtesy title as the Crown is fount of all enoblement and cannot hold a Peerage. It is impossible for the wife of The King to be The Duchess of Lancaster since her husband is The Sovereign, not a Duke of the Realm.

I read she used the title of Duchess of Lancaster to travel incognito through Europe.
Victoria liked to use Countess of Lancaster to travel, which is a non-existent title. Edward VII and Queen Alexandra used Duke and Duchess of Lancaster to travel privately. The Sovereign can do whatever they wish in terms of using styles informally, but that doesn't mean they are actually a Countess or Duke.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
:previous:
It didn't 'merge' with the crown as that makes it available for regrant.
It remains for the sole use of the monarch and is used by the monarch - it is a title and is still used.
.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
:previous:
With respect, the title Duke of Lancaster did merge with the Crown when Henry of Monmouth, the Prince of Wales became Henry V of England. At that point all his titles, including the Duke of Lancaster one (he was 1st Duke of Lancaster in its 3rd creation) merged with the Crown.

I think there is a bit of a confusion between the Duchy and the Dukedom of Lancaster. The Dukedom of Lancaster - a peerage - basically ceased to exist in 1413, when Henry V ascended to the Throne (although for a short period, it remained available for a new creation). The Duchy of Lancaster is what exists today (one of the only two duchies in England, alongside the Cornwall one). The Monarch - as the "head" of the Duchy" - is titled the Duke (or Duchess) of Lancaster but it is not a peerage title as the Dukedom of Lancaster once was.

Back during the reign of Henry IV, he declared that the Dukedom of Lancaster was reserved for his heirs male and was separate from other possessions of the Crown. For the period after Henry V's and Edward IV's accessions to the Throne, the title was available for recreation, albeit only for the male descendants of Henry IV. After Edward IV won the Throne, he confirmed the separation and also stipulated that the Duchy of Lancaster (and the title of the Duke of Lancaster) would be independent from other Crown possessions and would only belong to him (the Monarch) and his successors on the Throne of England. It's thanks to that separation that the Duchy of Lancaster wasn't included in George III's surrender of the Crown Estates (because the Duchy wasn't part of it).
.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: Ish
Future of current Britsh Royal Ducal titles.

{I'm unsure about how to create a new thread, or where this subject for discussion might best be placed, so perhaps the moderators could move it to where they think it should be ?}

I think it will be a shame if the {traditionally royal} Ducal titles of Kent & Gloucester cease to be so, on the death of their present holders. These titles have a royal history of great resonance, and i think it would be regretable if their royal nature was to be lost forever.

Perhaps the 'fount of honours', {at the time} could instigate the reversion of those titles to the crown, enabling their use in the future ?

The current heirs to the dukedoms could remain the Earls of St Andrews and of Ulster, respectively, also keeping their associated courtesy titles ?

I'd be interested to know what other members of this forum think about this.
 
I disagree.

George V knew what he was doing when he changed the LPs and then created his sons Dukes of Gloucester and Kent.

The only way to remove the titles from the heirs is to go through Parliament and have them deprived of their titles - and that would be all their titles - so St Andrews, Ulster, Culloden and Downpatrick would go as well.

There is no way Parliament would waste the time on such a trivial matter as depriving perfectly acceptable young men from holding titles.

What about Edinburgh - which if the intention announced in 1999 is followed through will also cease to be associated with an HRH in time as it will be recreated for Edward, possibly even with a neutral remainder in keeping with the equal nature of the monarchy.
 
:previous:
With respect, the title Duke of Lancaster did merge with the Crown when Henry of Monmouth, the Prince of Wales became Henry V of England. At that point all his titles, including the Duke of Lancaster one (he was 1st Duke of Lancaster in its 3rd creation) merged with the Crown.

I think there is a bit of a confusion between the Duchy and the Dukedom of Lancaster. The Dukedom of Lancaster - a peerage - basically ceased to exist in 1413, when Henry V ascended to the Throne (although for a short period, it remained available for a new creation). The Duchy of Lancaster is what exists today (one of the only two duchies in England, alongside the Cornwall one). The Monarch - as the "head" of the Duchy" - is titled the Duke (or Duchess) of Lancaster but it is not a peerage title as the Dukedom of Lancaster once was.

Back during the reign of Henry IV, he declared that the Dukedom of Lancaster was reserved for his heirs male and was separate from other possessions of the Crown. For the period after Henry V's and Edward IV's accessions to the Throne, the title was available for recreation, albeit only for the male descendants of Henry IV. After Edward IV won the Throne, he confirmed the separation and also stipulated that the Duchy of Lancaster (and the title of the Duke of Lancaster) would be independent from other Crown possessions and would only belong to him (the Monarch) and his successors on the Throne of England. It's thanks to that separation that the Duchy of Lancaster wasn't included in George III's surrender of the Crown Estates (because the Duchy wasn't part of it).
.


Thank you for confirming what I am saying - that it is a separate title to the monarchy - not merged at all as it:

a) isn't available for regrant
b) is only held my the monarch

Thus it isn't merged with the crown (had been as you pointed out in you post at one time) but was effectively regranted to the monarch and the monarch alone by the monarch (Edward IV).
 
What about Edinburgh - which if the intention announced in 1999 is followed through will also cease to be associated with an HRH in time as it will be recreated for Edward, possibly even with a neutral remainder in keeping with the equal nature of the monarchy.

If Edinburgh were to be recreated with a neutral remainder, then Lady Louise would inherit the Dukedom of Edinburgh (as the eldest child), and James would inherit the Earldom of Wessex (as the eldest male), since it was created with a male remainder. Correct?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom