Future Titles and Dukedoms for the Wales Children

[VictoriaB]

Many peerages in the UK are hereditary actually.

Not of recent creation.

Mrs Thatcher created 3 hereditary peerages - 2 of the recipients died without a male heir and so have become extinct. So effectively only one since 1964 - 60 years and it is difficult to see any current government reviving the practice. There’s no need since the creation of life peerages. But this is off the topic of the Wales children so I apologise to mods.

 

[tommy100]

My preference would be for any title moving forward to be conferred on the holder for life and not a hereditary peerage.

As for men and women marrying into the family (or the aristocracy in general) being treated the same, why not, as Tommy alluded to, neither gender of spouse shares the title.

With the exception of Royal Dukedoms (until Edward) all peerages or knighthoods are for life only and should be conferred for services to the nation (whether they are is another matter and a different conversation). That does not necessarily mean the spouse has similarly performed great service to the nation so why should they share the honour?

Or maybe the honoree is divorced and recently remarried, the person who has supported them for 40 years gets nothing while the spouse of a New York minute gets to swan around as Lord or Lady Whatever for the rest of their lives including after divorce.

Personally, I prefer honours to be earned.

This could work in a so called slimmed down monarchy IMO as the spouses of the two most senior royals already have or would have titles anyway

• The Sovereign & spouse (titled King & Queen or Queen and Duke of X)
  
  
• Heir to throne & spouse (Prince of Wales and Princess of Wales
  
  
• children of sovereign (or children of direct heir)
• HRH The Duke of X
• HRH The Duke of Y
• HRH The Princess Royal
• HRH The Duchess of Z

By not including spouses in the working royal mix they could do go without a royal title just as Sir Tim has done.

So for Williams reign it could well be:

TMs King William & Queen Catherine

• TRHs The Prince of Wales, Prince George & Princess of Wales his wife
  • HRH Prince X, Duke of Y & HRH The Duchess of Y
• Prince Louis, The Duke of X
• The Princess Royal or The Duchess of Y

It is a much smaller RF and of course the likes of Sophie do a lot for the RF now but its an interesting proposal.

 

[Mbruno]

I think it is possible for William to issue LP to create Charlotte a duchess in her own right and allow her to share the title with her spouse. As has been stated it does seem to be in the plans to create Charlotte a duchess.

William could grant Charlotte a peerage that could be inherited by her eldest son, or even her eldest child, as the remainder of a peerage is in the gift of the monarch. However, I think the King lacks the power to allow husbands of peeresses in their own right to share their wives' titles. In my humble opinion, as this is a matter of common law, it could be changed only by an act of Parliament. I would appreciate other opinions on this subject.

On the other hand, following the new creation of the title of Duke of Edinburgh as a life peerage for Prince Edward, some TRF members have speculated that future royal dukedoms may be also created as life peerages only. Of course, Prince Edward's precedent by itself does not guarantee such prediction (as his case may be an outlier), but the general trend of no new hereditary peerages being normally created (to keep the hereditary peerage a "closed class") also points in that direction.

I still think Charlotte will be styled Princess Royal as that is a tradition dating back to the 17th century, but, if Charlotte is given a dukedom, it is not outside the realm of possibility that it might be a life peerage as his great-uncle's.

EDIT: You made the point that members of the British Royal Family are given peerages so that their descendants can be titled, but, going forward, I don't see why giving titles to descendants (currently only of sons) of monarchs a title should be needed outside the direct line to the Crown. In Spain, for example, following the 1987 reforms, only children of the monarch, the heir, and children of the heir are titled. Children of Infantes/Infantas are not titled, but carry the style of Excellency, and when an Infante/Infanta is given an additional title of nobility (as Infantas Elena and Cristina were), it is a life title only, which, in theory, could not be shared with their consorts, but in practice is (or was in the case of the aforementioned Infantas when they were married), following the Spanish custom. William, I think, will be a more radical modernizer as King than his father and is close to the Spanish royals. I wouldn't ne surprised if he adopted the post-1987 Spanish model,

 

[meeralakshmi]

This could work in a so called slimmed down monarchy IMO as the spouses of the two most senior royals already have or would have titles anyway

• The Sovereign & spouse (titled King & Queen or Queen and Duke of X)
  
  
• Heir to throne & spouse (Prince of Wales and Princess of Wales
  
  
• children of sovereign (or children of direct heir)
• HRH The Duke of X
• HRH The Duke of Y
• HRH The Princess Royal
• HRH The Duchess of Z

By not including spouses in the working royal mix they could do go without a royal title just as Sir Tim has done.

So for Williams reign it could well be:

TMs King William & Queen Catherine

• TRHs The Prince of Wales, Prince George & Princess of Wales his wife
  • HRH Prince X, Duke of Y & HRH The Duchess of Y
• Prince Louis, The Duke of X
• The Princess Royal or The Duchess of Y

It is a much smaller RF and of course the likes of Sophie do a lot for the RF now but its an interesting proposal.

Why should the queen’s husband be a duke? Either king or prince consort would work better especially if you’re suggesting that the husband of the Princess of Wales should be the Prince of Wales (which I would agree with). Also I don’t see why spouses shouldn’t be working royals. The only reason Tim has no title is because of his gender, had he been a woman who married a prince he would have gotten a title automatically.

William could grant Charlotte a peerage that could be inherited by her eldest son, or even her eldest child, as the remainder of a peerage is in the gift of the monarch. However, I think the King lacks the power to allow husbands of peeresses in their own right to share their wives' titles. In my humble opinion, as this is a matter of common law, it could be changed only by an act of Parliament. I would appreciate other opinions on this subject.

On the other hand, following the new creation of the title of Duke of Edinburgh as a life peerage for Prince Edward, some TRF members have speculated that future royal dukedoms may be also created as life peerages only. Of course, Prince Edward's precedent by itself does not guarantee such prediction (as his case may be an outlier), but the general trend of no new hereditary peerages being normally created (to keep the hereditary peerage a "closed class") also points in that direction.

I still think Charlotte will be styled Princess Royal as that is a tradition dating back to the 17th century, but, if Charlotte is given a dukedom, it is not outside the realm of possibility that it might be a life peerage as his great-uncle's.

EDIT: You made the point that members of the British Royal Family are given peerages so that their descendants can be titled, but, going forward, I don't see why giving titles to descendants (currently only of sons) of monarchs a title should be needed outside the direct line to the Crown. In Spain, for example, following the 1987 reforms, only children of the monarch, the heir, and children of the heir are titled. Children of Infantes/Infantas are not titled, but carry the style of Excellency, and when an Infante/Infanta is given an additional title of nobility (as Infantas Elena and Cristina were), it is a life title only, which, in theory, could not be shared with their consorts, but in practice is (or was in the case of the aforementioned Infantas when they were married), following the Spanish custom. William, I think, will be a more radical modernizer as King than his father and is close to the Spanish royals. I wouldn't ne surprised if he adopted the post-1987 Spanish model,

Why would life peerages not be able to be shared with spouses? Such is the case in the UK as long as the peer is a man married to a woman.

 

[Mbruno]

Why would life peerages not be able to be shared with spouses? Such is the case in the UK as long as the peer is a man married to a woman.

But it is not the case when a peeress (either a hereditary or a life one) is married to a man. The husband of the Rt Hon The Baroness Scotland of Asthal (a life peeress who is by the way the current Commonwealth Secretary General) is not known as the Rt Hon The Baron Scotland of Asthal, but rather as Mr. Richard Mawhinney,

As I understand, wives sharing the titles and styles of their husbands is a principle of English common law that does not extend to husbands sharing the titles and styles of their wives. Constitutionally, the King cannot change the law by himself; only Parliament has that prerogative. This was enshrined in the English Bill of Rights of 1689, following the Revolution of 1688, and was the basis for the separation of the executive and legislative powers that later also influenced the US constitution.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

However, I think the King lacks the power to allow husbands of peeresses in their own right to share their wives' titles. In my humble opinion, as this is a matter of common law, it could be changed only by an act of Parliament. I would appreciate other opinions on this subject.

As I understand, wives sharing the titles and styles of their husbands is a principle of English common law that does not extend to husbands sharing the titles and styles of their wives. Constitutionally, the King cannot change the law by himself; only Parliament has that prerogative. This was enshrined in the English Bill of Rights of 1689, following the Revolution of 1688, and was the basis for the separation of the executive and legislative powers that later also influenced the US constitution.

I agree with your reasoning that revoking a right enshrined in common law (i.e., the right of women who marry men of superior rank to adopt their husband's higher rank and its associated titles) would require an act of Parliament. But allowing husbands (or same-sex wives) the right to share the title of their spouse would be the extension of a right, not the removal of one. (In general, the legal systems of democratic countries exercise more scrutiny in relation to stripping rights than granting them; there is more due process expected when the government seeks to imprison an individual, compared to when the government seeks to set a prisoner free.)

Nobody seems to doubt that King George VI was entitled to create then Princess Elizabeth's husband Philip a duke in his own right, which at the time theoretically entailed substantive legal benefits, primarily the entitlement to a seat in the national legislature. If a King could confer a substantive title with significant legal consequences on a male consort with no objections from Parliament, he could surely have extended an empty courtesy spousal style, if he wished.

 

[meeralakshmi]

But it is not the case when a peeress (either a hereditary or a life one) is married to a man. The husband of the Rt Hon The Baroness Scotland of Asthal (a life peeress who is by the way the current Commonwealth Secretary General) is not known as the Rt Hon The Baron Scotland of Asthal, but rather as Mr. Richard Mawhinney,

As I understand, wives sharing the titles and styles of their husbands is a principle of English common law that does not extend to husbands sharing the titles and styles of their wives. Constitutionally, the King cannot change the law by himself; only Parliament has that prerogative. This was enshrined in the English Bill of Rights of 1689, following the Revolution of 1688, and was the basis for the separation of the executive and legislative powers that later also influenced the US constitution.

Children of Infantes/Infantas are not titled, but carry the style of Excellency, and when an Infante/Infanta is given an additional title of nobility (as Infantas Elena and Cristina were), it is a life title only, which, in theory, could not be shared with their consorts, but in practice is (or was in the case of the aforementioned Infantas when they were married), following the Spanish custom.

The way you phrased this implied that infantes/infantas wouldn’t be able to share their peerage titles with their spouses because their peerages are life peerages. You’re right that currently under UK law women can’t share their titles with their spouses and men can’t use their spouses’ titles.

 

[Biri]

Of course George will become Prnce of Wales when his grandpa dies and father ascends the throne.

Charlotte will become Princess Royal - but no sooner than after both her grandpa and Princess Anne pass away, giving that this is the traditional title of the eldest daughter of the reigning monarch.

As for Louis - he will receive his dukedom on his wedding day - which one it depends from that whether Andrew, Duke of York will be still alive at the day of Louis' wedding, which is possible. If yes - other dukedom for Louis, if not - the one of York, giving that this is the traditional title of the second son of the reigning monarch.


Far away in the future - if George has a daughter as the firstborn child, she will be the Princess of Wales in her honour, and more far away - her husband will use the title of the Duke of Cornwall.

 

[Stefan]

Far away in the future - if George has a daughter as the firstborn child, she will be the Princess of Wales in her honour, and more far away - her husband will use the title of the Duke of Cornwall.

Under the present regulations a possible firstborn daughter of George can be created Princess of Wales but she will not become Duchess of Cornwall as till now this only for the oldest son of the Monarch. To change that Parliament would need to change to Charter of the Duchy of Cornwall

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The way you phrased this implied that infantes/infantas wouldn’t be able to share their peerage titles with their spouses because their peerages are life peerages.

Mbruno probably chose not to specify details because it is the British forum, but I'll quote his full explanation from the Spanish forum (for those who do not know, one can jump to a quoted post by clicking the "Mbruno said" at the top of it).

It is true that Jaime de Marichalar and Iñaki Urdangarin were referred to as Duke of Lugo and Duke of Palma de Mallorca and were often cited by the prefix "Excelentísimo Señor" in Spain, even perhaps by the Royal Household itself.

However, as some legal scholars argued at the time, apparently to no avail, that was actually a misconception. When someone in Spain is given a Title of the Kingdom by royal decree, that title belongs to the grantee and can be transmitted hereditarily to his or her successors according to the terms of the concession and the Spanish nobiliary law currently in force. The use of the title also extends by courtesy to the legal spouse according to Spanish custom, which is why the husband of a Spanish duchess in her own right is addressed also as a duke.

The titles of nobility belonging to the Royal House, which are the object of the Art. 6 of the Royal Decree 1368/1987 are not, on the other hand, transferred to the grantee as an ordinary Title of the Kingdom. Instead, the King merely confers on the grantee, who must necessarily be a member of the King's family, a right to use the title, rather than the title itself. The concession of right is said in the RD to be "for life", but at the same time ex gratia, which is why the King can revoke it any time. The notion that it is the right to use the title which is being revoked, rather than the title itself, is made clear for example in the text of the RD 470/2015.

Another important aspect of Art. 6 is, furthermore, that the concession to members of the King's family of the right to use titles of nobility belonging to the Royal House is "personal", in addition to being "ex gratia" and "for life". That means, according to one interpretation, that the right of use of the title is strictly non-transferrable and does not extend, by courtesy, to the spouse, as it would be the case of an ordinary Title of the Kingdom.

Again, all that was ignored by the Spanish press (or maybe even the Royal Household) when they treated the dukedoms of Lugo and Palma as ordinary Spanish dukedoms to determine Jaime's and Iñaki's titulaire. Strictly speaking, however, if the King wanted to make sure that their sons-in-law had a title, the correct procedure would have been to bestow a hereditary peerage on each of them, which the King could have done, as the RD 1368/1987 says, under the powers granted to him by Art. 62(f) of the constitution. That would have required, however, another Royal Decree countersigned by the Prime Minister.

Could it have been the case that the Government was OK with the use for life of titles of nobility belonging to the Royal House by the Infantas Elena and Cristina, but did not agree to hereditary peerages for Jaime and Iñaki, which could then be transmitted to Felipe Froilán and Juan Valentin under the regular order of succession?

 

[muriel]

Lancaster and Cornwall are not exactly hereditary either, but more like held ex-officio.

The issue with hereditary royal dukedoms is that, over time, they also add to the number of non-royal dukes. That is not a problem per se, unless there is a goal to keep the class of non-royal dukes as a closed class.

Right now, Cambridge and Edinburgh will eventually revert to the Crown, and York by accident has no heirs, but Sussex, Gloucester and Kent are titles that will be carried over (probably) to the next generation and, possibly, beyond that. The Dukedom of Kent in particular has lots of eligible male-line successors , with the potential of lingering for multiple generations, and the Dukedom of Gloucester already has living heirs covering two more generations, despite being still a short line of succession.

I concur. And that is why I think dukedoms to non-main line members of the BRF should be non-hereditary only.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

It is certainly reasonable to make predictions, but there is no means by which any of us can be certain what will happen in regard to titles when King Charles III or his siblings die or when Prince George or his siblings wed, except perhaps for the titles which are legally automatic for and only for the King's oldest son and heir (Duke of Cornwall etc.).

I'm sure they'd have some way of allowing Charlotte's spouse to use her title, not sure what.

That would open a can of worms as then surely the rest of the peerage would want the same?

I agree it should be possible, but I am not sure it is without reforms to the peerage and the way their titles work.

The issue of sexism and heterosexism in consort titulature has already been raised in Parliament and in the media. To avoid taking this thread off-topic, I have posted sources in the British Nobility thread:

The British Nobility thread 2: Sep 2022 -

The Marchioness of Bath attended the Frieze Art Fair 2024 in London today, October 9: ** Pic **

www.theroyalforums.com

 

[Tatiana Maria]

It has been promised to Edward about 25 years earlier, so I would hope it was never a serious consideration to give it to Charlotte instead.

It was apparently considered seriously enough that when someone leaked the proposal to the Daily Mail and the story gained traction in other news outlets as well, Buckingham Palace chose not to deny it (even though the family/palace has issued denials on other title-related stories). From November 2022:

Sources told The Mail on Sunday: “Discussions are under way, but the favoured outcome for the King is that this title ought to go to Princess Charlotte.

‘It would be a fitting way to remember the Queen - who, of course, had the title Duchess of Edinburgh - and a way for His Majesty to honour the line of succession.”
[...]
An insider said: “Charlotte’s position is historically significant because she is the first female member of the Royal family whose place in the line of succession will not be surpassed by her younger brother.

“So it is constitutionally significant that Charlotte should be given such a corresponding title, because it is not beyond the realms of possibility that she will accede the throne if, for example, Prince George does not have children.”
[...]
A source close to Edward said it “had not gone unnoticed” that he had not been granted the title.

A Buckingham Palace spokesman said no decision had been made.

King Charles 'saving Duchess of Edinburgh title for Princess Charlotte'

Honour was expected to go to Earl of Wessex but insiders say it would be 'fitting tribute to Queen' if Prince of Wales's daughter took it

www.telegraph.co.uk

Thanks for referencing the source! It seems his biographer draws unfounded far-fetched conclusions (in April 2023 - but the book of course was most likely written before Charles did award the Edinburgh peerage to his brother) because it is quite a gamble to make Edward the Duke of Edinburgh in March 2023 if Charles' intention is to make Charlotte the Duchess of Edinburgh on her wedding day. Does he either expect Edward to die young (after all Edward was 59 when he got the title - and if he has the longevity of his parents could be around for another 30-40 years) or Charlotte (turning 10 this year) to marry late?

There is another quote on the subject from the Robert Jobson biography here:

"Although the King has made his brother Edward the new Duke of Edinburgh, the title is only for life. After Edward dies, Charles has made it clear Charlotte (now aged seven) should become Duchess of Edinburgh."​

For reference, this is the quote from the same biography from the article that meeralakshmi shared:

"As the King, Charles plans to honour his granddaughter and the change in hereditary law by granting her the title Duchess of Edinburgh, one of the most senior royal dukedoms in the Royal Family, on her wedding day."​

I'm intrigued why people think it would be better for Charlotte (or any future Princesses) to get a peerage rather than the title Princess Royal? I would say that most people get if you have a royal family you have royal titles and styles but that doesn't need to be tied to the nobility and peerages which, certainly outside of the RF, are not necessarily supported and liked all round.

I can think of two possible reasons:

1. Gender equality: As Charlotte would presumably be bestowed with a dukedom if she were the son of the Prince of Wales, granting her a duchessdom would affirm that daughters are now considered equal to sons.

2. Ducal titles have a more prestigious history. In medieval times, dukes were powerful vassals of the king who governed their own lands. Until the 20th century, dukes and other peers enjoyed an assortment of special legal rights, including a seat in Parliament and immunities from the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts. The Princess Royal title, on the other hand, has always been purely honorary.

 

[Mbruno]

.

It was apparently considered seriously enough that when someone leaked the proposal to the Daily Mail and the story gained traction in other news outlets as well, Buckingham Palace chose not to deny it (even though the family/palace has issued denials on other title-related stories). From November 2022:

Sources told The Mail on Sunday: “Discussions are under way, but the favoured outcome for the King is that this title ought to go to Princess Charlotte.​

​

‘It would be a fitting way to remember the Queen - who, of course, had the title Duchess of Edinburgh - and a way for His Majesty to honour the line of succession.”​

[...]​

An insider said: “Charlotte’s position is historically significant because she is the first female member of the Royal family whose place in the line of succession will not be surpassed by her younger brother.​

​

“So it is constitutionally significant that Charlotte should be given such a corresponding title, because it is not beyond the realms of possibility that she will accede the throne if, for example, Prince George does not have children.”​

[...]​

A source close to Edward said it “had not gone unnoticed” that he had not been granted the title.​

​

A Buckingham Palace spokesman said no decision had been made.​

​

King Charles 'saving Duchess of Edinburgh title for Princess Charlotte'

Honour was expected to go to Earl of Wessex but insiders say it would be 'fitting tribute to Queen' if Prince of Wales's daughter took it

www.telegraph.co.uk

There is another quote on the subject from the Robert Jobson biography here:

"Although the King has made his brother Edward the new Duke of Edinburgh, the title is only for life. After Edward dies, Charles has made it clear Charlotte (now aged seven) should become Duchess of Edinburgh."​

For reference, this is the quote from the same biography from the article that meeralakshmi shared:

"As the King, Charles plans to honour his granddaughter and the change in hereditary law by granting her the title Duchess of Edinburgh, one of the most senior royal dukedoms in the Royal Family, on her wedding day."​

I can think of two possible reasons:

1. Gender equality: As Charlotte would presumably be bestowed with a dukedom if she were the son of the Prince of Wales, granting her a duchessdom would affirm that daughters are now considered equal to sons.

2. Ducal titles have a more prestigious history. In medieval times, dukes were powerful vassals of the king who governed their own lands. Until the 20th century, dukes and other peers enjoyed an assortment of special legal rights, including a seat in Parliament and immunities from the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts. The Princess Royal title, on the other hand, has always been purely honorary.

As you said, it is completely speculative to say what will happen to Charlotte's style when her father is king. A decision on that matter has not been made yet (at least not publicly) and we are not (at least I am not) privy to what King Charles III or the current Prince of Wales thinks about it.

However, as I also said before, I would be very surprised if William abandoned a tradition that is over 300 years old by not styling Charlotte as the Princess Royal when possible. On the other hand, if Charlotte were to be given a peerage in the name of gender equality, I think it would make more sense for her to become the Duchess of York (possibly for life only) after Prince Andrew passes away. I say so because, first the title would be available and, second, Duke of York is traditionally a title given to the secondborn son of the monarch (when available) and, under gender neutral rules, it would make sense to give it to King William V's secondborn child (rather than son).

 

[meeralakshmi]

Of course George will become Prnce of Wales when his grandpa dies and father ascends the throne.

Charlotte will become Princess Royal - but no sooner than after both her grandpa and Princess Anne pass away, giving that this is the traditional title of the eldest daughter of the reigning monarch.

As for Louis - he will receive his dukedom on his wedding day - which one it depends from that whether Andrew, Duke of York will be still alive at the day of Louis' wedding, which is possible. If yes - other dukedom for Louis, if not - the one of York, giving that this is the traditional title of the second son of the reigning monarch.


Far away in the future - if George has a daughter as the firstborn child, she will be the Princess of Wales in her honour, and more far away - her husband will use the title of the Duke of Cornwall.

I don’t think it’s ever been confirmed that the husband of a Princess of Wales in her own right would be Duke of Cornwall.

Mbruno probably chose not to specify details because it is the British forum, but I'll quote his full explanation from the Spanish forum (for those who do not know, one can jump to a quoted post by clicking the "Mbruno said" at the top of it).

I take personal to mean that it can’t be inherited. The sisters of Juan Carlos also have life peerages that their husbands use as courtesy titles.

As you said, it is completely speculative to say what will happen to Charlotte's style when her father is king. A decision on that matter has not been made yet (at least not publicly) and we are not (at least I am not) privy to what King Charles III or the current Prince of Wales thinks about it.

However, as I also said before, I would be very surprised if William abandoned a tradition that is over 300 years old by not styling Charlotte as the Princess Royal when possible. On the other hand, if Charlotte were to be given a peerage in the name of gender equality, I think it would make more sense for her to become the Duchess of York (possibly for life only) after Prince Andrew passes away. I say so because, first the title would be available and, second, Duke of York is traditionally a title given to the secondborn son of the monarch (when available) and, under gender neutral rules, it would make sense to give it to King William V's secondborn child (rather than son).

My guess is that Charlotte will be given a peerage before or when she marries so her kids can be titled and it’s likely that Andrew is still alive then.

 

[Mbruno]

I take personal to mean that it can’t be inherited. The sisters of Juan Carlos also have life peerages that their husbands use as courtesy titles.

I suppose that would be covered by the use of title being designated in " carácter vitalicio" rather than in "carácter personal". See a discussion here (emphasis added by myself).

Los títulos de la Casa Real no son regulados por las mismas normas que el resto de títulos nobiliarios, sino únicamente por el Real Decreto 1368/1987, de 6 de noviembre, sobre régimen de títulos, tratamientos y honores de la Familia Real y de los Regentes. Es este Real Decreto el que establece en su artículo sexto que el uso de estos títulos «solamente podrá ser autorizado por el Titular de la Corona a los miembros de su Familia». Además, define su carácter como «graciable, personal y vitalicio», es decir, que su autorización se basa en el derecho de gracia del rey, que únicamente puede ser ostentado por aquella persona a la que le fue concedido (ni siquiera por su consorte) y que se extingue tras el fallecimiento del agraciado, revirtiendo de nuevo a la Corona.

In practice, the highlighted restrictions were ignored in Spain in the case of Infanta Elena's and Infanta Cristina's husbands, as they were treated as courtesy dukes. I won't say anything further as it would be off-topic,

 

[Mbruno]

My guess is that Charlotte will be given a peerage before or when she marries so her kids can be titled and it’s likely that Andrew is still alive then.

Why do you assume that Charlotte would care about her kids not being titled? Or that giving all of his grandchildren titles would be a priority for King William V?

If anything, as I said, the modernizing trend would be for George's children to be the only grandchildren of King William and Queen Catherine to have titles.

Maybe a rule could be created, however, for Charlotte's and Louis' kids to be styled Lord/Lady regardless of their parents' holding a peerage or not. That would be similar in a way to the Spanish rule under which children of Infantes/Infantas are untitled, but are extended the same style as that of an untitled Grandee of Spain.

 

[meeralakshmi]

Why do you assume that Charlotte would care about her kids not being titled? Or that giving all of his grandchildren titles would be a priority for King William V?

If anything, as I said, the modernizing trend would be for George's children to be the only grandchildren of King William and Queen Catherine to have titles.

Maybe a rule could be created, however, for Charlotte's and Louis' kids to be styled Lord/Lady regardless of their parents' holding a peerage or not. That would be similar in a way to the Spanish rule under which children of Infantes/Infantas are untitled, but are extended the same style as that of an untitled Grandee of Spain.

I feel like it wouldn’t make much sense for Charlotte’s children to be ahead of Louis’ in the line of succession but be untitled while Louis’ kids are titled. Considering that they’re the children of the spare they should have some sort of title.

 

[Mbruno]

I feel like it wouldn’t make much sense for Charlotte’s children to be ahead of Louis’ in the line of succession but be untitled while Louis’ kids are titled. Considering that they’re the children of the spare they should have some sort of title.

But the situation I alluded to that is different from what you said. I am considering a scenario where only George's children would be titled (as in the Spanish model) and neither Charlotte's nor Louis' children would have titles, perhaps only a special style like Lord/Lady.

 

[meeralakshmi]

But the situation I alluded to that is different from what you said. I am considering a scenario where only George's children would be titled (as in the Spanish model) and neither Charlotte's nor Louis' children would have titles, perhaps only a special style like Lord/Lady.

I see, however Lord and Lady are titles given to the children of a non-royal duke so it would still make sense for Charlotte and Louis to have peerages.

 

[Somebody]

In the past the husband of a princess would be given a lower peerage, so their children woukd be Lords and Ladies. The most recent example was Margaret's husband (earl) and children (viscount -now earl- and lady).

I understand that is not your preferred solution but there are other ways to achieve the same outcomes for any children they may have.

 

[meeralakshmi]

In the past the husband of a princess would be given a lower peerage, so their children woukd be Lords and Ladies. The most recent example was Margaret's husband (earl) and children (viscount -now earl- and lady).

I understand that is not your preferred solution but there are other ways to achieve the same outcomes for any children they may have.

The younger sons of an earl have the prefix of The Honourable, not Lord.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

It was back when the debate surrounding the change in the succession to the Crown was being debated. I've gotten rid of huge sections of my personal library since then, but I do recall arguments that the individual LsPs would need to be amended individually for each peerage (and that no one was discussing the Baronetage). The House of Lords Library does have some of the debate surrounding the hereditary peerages and the failure to address them, though. I remember there being additional discussions when the current Marchioness of Bath's second son was born via surrogacy and she was decrying how he wasn't in line to the title because he wasn't born "of the body," but I didn't pay close attention to whether she cited any legal arguments regarding succession to peerage titles or know of a means to see whether her second son truly isn't in line to become Marquess of Bath.

Thanks for answering! Happy to hear that you read the interesting parliamentary debates about the bill that became the Succession to the Crown Act of 2013; it would be nice to have more discussion on them.

I've also read through all the parliamentary discussions on the Succession to the Crown Act, and while it was years ago, I did mark down the declarations and clarifications about various legal subjects that the then government offered during the course of the debates (including, since you mention it, the government's agreement with the interpretation that children born through artificial reproduction are excluded from succession to peerages and the throne). In addition, I read all of the responses by governments (coalition, Conservative and Labour) to the assorted private members' bills and parliamentary questions from 2013 to 2024 on the question of introducing female succession to peerages. None of the UK governments, in their comments and responses since (at least) 2013, ever suggested the idea that peerages would need to be amended individually in order to introduce female succession (even though, if it had been true, it would have supported their argument that female succession was "too complicated" to implement).

I've also read the entirety of Valentine Heywood's book on peerage laws and customs, as well as other articles and book excerpts concerning English and UK nobility law. None of these sources ever broached the idea that Parliament would need to amend every letters patent individually in order to implement general reforms to the peerage succession.

Past generalized reforms of the peerage have occurred without amending each peerage's letters patent individually. For example, the introduction of the right to disclaim peerages (disclaiming a peerage is not simply refraining from using the title, it is a genuine removal of the title which demotes the successor's legal status from peer to commoner, thereby reversing the succession that occurred) or the removal of the entitlement to a seat in the House of Lords (although that is not about succession per se, it is about a legal right that was specifically provided in some older peerages' creation documents) were accomplished without any edits to individual peerages' documents.

And of course, for every proposal to female succession, there is always somebody who counters by saying that if equality is what we desire then we should abolish the peerage. None of them ever seem to argue that abolishing the peerage would require amending or revoking individual letters patent one at a time.

So unless and until someone can cite a legal authority, I think it is best to conclude that the MP(s) who suggested that introducing female succession would necessitate amending each peerage's letters patent was not presenting a mainstream legal opinion.


As a general note for others who might not be familiar with the aforementioned parliamentary debates and questions and answers, they are searchable for all on Parliament.uk:

https://hansard.parliament.uk/

https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/

 

[Mbruno]

In the past the husband of a princess would be given a lower peerage, so their children woukd be Lords and Ladies. The most recent example was Margaret's husband (earl) and children (viscount -now earl- and lady).

I understand that is not your preferred solution but there are other ways to achieve the same outcomes for any children they may have.

If the King decides so, they can be Lords/Ladies even if their parents do not hold a peerage, just as Prince Michael of Kent's children use the prefixes Lord/Lady even though Prince Michael himself is not a peer.

My proposal for the next reign is that all grandchildren of the King who are not also children of the heir be styled Lord/Lady, just as grandchildren of sons of a monarch now are when they are not already princes/princesses. That would be based solely on the degree of kinship to the monarch, rather than on the peerage status of their parents.

There would be no more special titles/styles, however, for great-grandchildren of a monarch in any case, except perhaps for the children of the eldest child of the heir, who would still be princes/princesses from birth.

Peerages for princes/princesses are not needed per se and the awarding of such peerages could be discontinued in the next reign as we move to a more streamlined system where children of the monarch and children of the heir (plus possibly children of the eldest child of the heir) are simply HRH Prince/Princess xxx of the United Kingdom. Only the heir properly could hold a special dynastic title such as HRH The Prince/Princess of Wales , which would become automatic (like Prince/Princess of Orange or Prince/Princess of Asturias).

For other reasons, it would be wise that the heir still remained also the Duke of Cornwall and kept his Scottish titles, but the question of what to do in this case if the heir is a woman still remains unclear to me.

 

[tommy100]

The fact that there have been numerous parliamentary debates about reforming peerage titles, successions, male spouses being able to share their wives titles etc suggests that Charles in time or William as King:
a) could be given more or less options depending on the outcomes of those debates e.g. they may well be able to grant Charlotte a ducal title she can share with her husband by then
b) if the issues are still ongoing it is quite possible IMO they will avoid breaking decades of precedence being politically neutral by awarding a ducal title or peerage to any of William's children and being seen to take sides

I do think some thought will be given to how to ensure royal titles are limited to those likely to become working royals and recent events will be taken in to account. By that I think it will become the case that only George's children hold royal titles and Charlotte and Louis' won't.

 

[Somebody]

If the King decides so, they can be Lords/Ladies even if their parents do not hold a peerage, just as Prince Michael of Kent's children use the prefixes Lord/Lady even though Prince Michael himself is not a peer.

True, however, their use of Lord/Lady by prince Michael's children is not based on an individual decision but on the general rule (established by LP in 1917 I believe) that great-grandchildren in the male-line are Lords and Ladies (just like grandchildren in the male-line are princes and princesses). Prior to that, they would have been Highnesses (instead of Royal Highnesses) and princes. So, making the great-grandchildren in main line lords and ladies was a downgrade.

My proposal for the next reign is that all grandchildren of the King who are not also children of the heir be styled Lord/Lady, just as grandchildren of sons of a monarch now are when they are not already princes/princesses. That would be based solely on the degree of kinship to the monarch, rather than on the peerage status of their parents.

I thought they might have gone in that direction after that decision was made for Louise and James. However, I guess Charles didn't want to risk accusations if he continued applying that rule for his grandchildren.

There would be no more special titles/styles, however, for great-grandchildren of a monarch in any case, except perhaps for the children of the eldest child of the heir, who would still be princes/princesses from birth.

It would indeed be smart to somehow word in a way that children of those in the direct line to the throne will always be princes and princesses; and grandchildren of those in direct line to the throne (the heir) could be lords and ladies from birth in the new system you are proposing.

Peerages for princes/princesses are not needed per se and the awarding of such peerages could be discontinued in the next reign as we move to a more streamlined system where children of the monarch and children of the heir (plus possibly children of the eldest child of the heir) are simply HRH Prince/Princess xxx of the United Kingdom. Only the heir properly could hold a special dynastic title such as HRH The Prince/Princess of Wales , which would become automatic (like Prince/Princess of Orange or Prince/Princess of Asturias).

For other reasons, it would be wise that the heir still remained also the Duke of Cornwall and kept his Scottish titles, but the question of what to do in this case if the heir is a woman still remains unclear to me.

It would indeed be best if these titles are given to the 'heir apparent' from now on and not to the 'eldest son' (which in the past would have been the heir apparent).

 

[meeralakshmi]

Anne doesn’t need to do anything about making sure her title goes to Charlotte though I’m for getting rid of the Princess Royal title and giving princesses peerages instead.

Rather than getting rid of the Princess Royal title Prince/Princess Royal could become the official title of the spare since Duke of York isn’t and wasn’t intended to be always available.

 

[meeralakshmi]

It used to be normal in both Scotland and England that the husband of a peeress in her own right would either share his wife’s title or be granted the male version of her title.

He would also represent her in Parliament, attending in her name. (Presumably women weren’t permitted to enter Parliament in person in those days.)

Historically, the husband of a peeress in her own right adopted the wife’s title jure uxoris and was summonsed to Parliament in his wife’s title, although it has been suggested that this might have been a new creation. In England, there have been no such claims since 1612 and this older practice is now obsolete.126 This practice also applied in Scotland until about the same time.​

​

126 Palmer, Peerage Law, pp.133-4.​

​

https://discovery.dundee.ac.uk/en/publications/reforming-the-law-of-succession-to-peerages-baronetcies-and-digni

As for Charlotte’s spouse sharing her title dukes jure uxoris apparently used to be commonplace in the UK.

 

[EllieCat]

I really don't know that much about the legal side of it, but I personally would like to see all the children, no matter the gender, of the Monarch have a dukedom for life (other than the eldest who would be Prince of Wales). And the grandchildren of the Monarch (other than the heir's children) become Lords and Ladies, no matter the parentage (i.e. in this scenario Peter and Zara would be a Lord and Lady).

And I'd also like to see the Gloucester and Kent dukedoms come back in to the royal fold, with the Earls of St Andrews and Ulster retaining the Earldom titles only for them and their descendants.

I know it's a class system and some people will argue against titles in general, but I feel if there weren't titles at all apart from the Monarch and perhaps the Heir, then the UK would be a poorer place because i think those things add a little bit of magic to the British culture and sets it apart; and it's been going on for about 1.5 millennia so it's certainly a time-honoured system.

I think Prince Andrew has a good chance of still being alive when Princess Charlotte marries, and probably more so Prince Edward, so not sure the Dukedoms of Edinburgh or York will be available but I definitely would like her to receive the Princess Royal title, as well as a dukedom; the Royal Family is getting slimmer and slimmer so might as well spread those titles around!

 

[Iluvbertie]

One thing to remember with titles is that it hasn't been the 'done thing' to re-create a title while anyone is still alive who used that title so York should be out as long as not only Andrew, but Sarah, Beatrice and Eugenie are still alive.

I remember the reports that the late Queen Mum and The Princess Margaret were asked if they objected to Andrew getting York but as they had higher titles they didn't object. Although Beatrice and Eugenie have dropped the 'of York' they are still Princesses 'of York'.

Someone suggested that the Gloucester and Kent titles should return to being royal - as there are heirs male in the next two generations and the Letters Patent stipulated 'heirs male' that isn't going to happen. That would take legislation and parliament is more likely to strip all titles rather than do away with the rights of the heirs to a title (remember to that Cumberland and Albany are still not available as their are heirs male of those titles who could petition to have them reinstated).

Personally I can see a new Letters Patent limited HRH Prince/Princess to the children of the heir apparent in each generation and no new titles at all. Giving the sons peerage titles made sense when it stopped them standing for election to the House of Commons but now a peer can do that there is no need to give peerage titles at all to anyone. Most of the time people refer to these people by their Princely name anyway so why bother?

Charles has indicated he wants a smaller royal family so he needs to act on that - certainly not increase the number eligible for royal status but reduce it further. His 'working royals' idea of only a few is working wonders for young people who have no one in their generation i.e. those in their teens, twenties or thirties undertaking royal duties with only 2 under 50 and only 4 under 70 the royal family is fast aging itself out of relevance.