Future Titles and Dukedoms for the Wales Children

[Alison H]

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

Way back when, yes. The title of Duke of Lancaster, now held by the monarch, was inherited by Henry IV because his father became Duke of Lancaster on his marriage to Blanche, daughter of the previous Duke of Lancaster. The infamous Warwick the Kingmaker also got his title via his wife.

To be fair to the King, he couldn't have anticipated that Harry and Meghan would jump ship and that Andrew would make such a mess of his life. But, in about ten years' time, William and Catherine aren't going to seem as glamorous as they do now, when they're on the front pages all the time, and the Wales children will still be at school or university.

Having said which, generation gaps are increasing generally. The late Queen married at 21, and had two children by the time she was 25. That was quite common in the late 1940s and the 1950s, but very few people now marry at 21.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

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'.

King George III did not share Queen Elizabeth II’s opinion that it wasn’t the “done thing”. He recreated the Dukedom of Cumberland for his son Ernest Augustus while his sister-in-law Anne was still using the title Duchess of Cumberland. Considering George III had banned Anne from court, I doubt he asked for her permission.

No other monarchs had an opportunity to recreate a royal dukedom while anyone was still alive who used that title, so we do not know whether they would have done it if they'd had the chance.

(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).

Not for Albany. The Royal Marriages Act of 1772 made the 2nd Duke of Albany’s grandchildren illegitimate under British law. Illegitimate children cannot inherit peerages.

As male-line descendants of King George II, the Duke of Albany’s children were required to obtain the British monarchs’ permission to marry under the Royal Marriages Act, or else their marriages would not be legal (in Britain):

no descendant of the body of his late Majesty King George the Second, male or female (other than the issue of princesses who have married, or may hereafter marry, into foreign families), shall be capable of contracting matrimony without the previous consent of his Majesty, his heirs or successors, [...] and that every marriage, or matrimonial contract, of any such descendant, without such consent first had and obtained, shall be null and void to all intents and purposes whatsoever'.​

None of them asked the British monarchs’ permission to marry (their family was alienated from the British royal family as they had been on opposing sides of World War I), so their marriages were indeed “null and void to all intents and purposes whatsoever” as far as the UK was concerned, making their children illegitimate in British law.

(There is a small chance that the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 legitimated them retroactively, but that is a whole other discussion.)

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.

Continued the age discussion in The Future of the British Monarchy 2: Sep 2022 -.

 

[PrincessofEurope]

I do wonder if with the slim down monarchy that titles on marriage become a thing of the past.

I see George receiving a Dukedom on his marriage if say William is still PoW. However I wonder would it best to leave Charlotte and Louis without a separate to title on marriage. And they simply be Princess Charlotte & Prince Louis.

 

[meeralakshmi]

I do wonder if with the slim down monarchy that titles on marriage become a thing of the past.

I see George receiving a Dukedom on his marriage if say William is still PoW. However I wonder would it best to leave Charlotte and Louis without a separate to title on marriage. And they simply be Princess Charlotte & Prince Louis.

The issue with that is the titles of their spouses and children.

 

[JGio]

I do wonder if with the slim down monarchy that titles on marriage become a thing of the past.

I see George receiving a Dukedom on his marriage if say William is still PoW. However I wonder would it best to leave Charlotte and Louis without a separate to title on marriage. And they simply be Princess Charlotte & Prince Louis.

I doubt the slim down monarchy will leave aside Charlotte and Louis and their spouses. Everything can’t be on William Catherine, George and his spouse..

 

[tommy100]

The problem with not giving titles upon marriage is that if that had been the case up to now we'd have had Princess Edward, Princess William and Princess Harry as in the UK the women who marry in take the female version of their husband's name like Princess Michael of Kent has done.

IMO they either have to change it so women who marry in get the title Princess along with their name (and then the question is if they are changing that why not change to include males who marry in getting Prince as a title while married?)

or

Continue creating Dukedoms

or

stop giving those who marry in any title at all (which would have to exempt any spouse of a direct heir)

I guess one of the reasons for granting Dukedoms etc is precisely to avoid a situation like we have now with grandchildren of a sovereign going without any titles at all - e.g. Zara and Peter who are plain Mr and Miss/Mrs. They seem to be doing perfectly fine without Lord or Lady as a title of the lowest kind, so perhaps the need for creating royal Dukedoms etc is indeed gone. It would be interesting to know whether or not William has any strong feelings on noble titles, he may feel strongly that his children /grandchildren couldn't possibly go without them, or think it very outdated to create new titles for them.

 

[meeralakshmi]

The problem with not giving titles upon marriage is that if that had been the case up to now we'd have had Princess Edward, Princess William and Princess Harry as in the UK the women who marry in take the female version of their husband's name like Princess Michael of Kent has done.

IMO they either have to change it so women who marry in get the title Princess along with their name (and then the question is if they are changing that why not change to include males who marry in getting Prince as a title while married?)

or

Continue creating Dukedoms

or

stop giving those who marry in any title at all (which would have to exempt any spouse of a direct heir)

I guess one of the reasons for granting Dukedoms etc is precisely to avoid a situation like we have now with grandchildren of a sovereign going without any titles at all - e.g. Zara and Peter who are plain Mr and Miss/Mrs. They seem to be doing perfectly fine without Lord or Lady as a title of the lowest kind, so perhaps the need for creating royal Dukedoms etc is indeed gone. It would be interesting to know whether or not William has any strong feelings on noble titles, he may feel strongly that his children /grandchildren couldn't possibly go without them, or think it very outdated to create new titles for them.

Peter and Zara are fine being untitled because female-line grandchildren traditionally haven’t received titles. Mark was offered an earldom but turned it down. Imo the current system is fine as long as they make it gender-blind.

 

[meeralakshmi]

If they want some or all of the peerages to be life peerages that’s fine.

 

[doro]

What will be future of the Dukedoms of Gloucester, Kent and York?

 

[meeralakshmi]

What will be future of the Dukedoms of Gloucester, Kent and York?

Gloucester and Kent will become non-royal dukedoms when Richard and Edward die, they have multiple male heirs so they aren’t going extinct anytime soon. York will go extinct when Andrew dies because he has no male heirs, it’ll probably go to a child of George’s next.

 

[tommy100]

It is no surprise really that a number of Royal Dukedoms are going to be going out royal holdership. I guess its amazing really that the likes of Kent and Gloucester haven't done so before for any prolonged period of time.

 

[meeralakshmi]

It is no surprise really that a number of Royal Dukedoms are going to be going out royal holdership. I guess its amazing really that the likes of Kent and Gloucester haven't done so before for any prolonged period of time.

Royal dukedoms are intended to become non-royal after two generations, the same will happen with the dukedom of Sussex if Archie has a son unless they (hopefully) decide that peerages can be inherited by women.

 

[Somebody]

What will be future of the Dukedoms of Gloucester, Kent and York?

Gloucester will go to the duke’s son Alexander (known as the Earl of Ulster) and after that to his son Xan (known as Lord Culloden). And after that it will either become extinct or pass on to Xan’s eldest son (if he has one). Upon passing to Alexander, the dukedom ceases to be royal as the next holder is not a royal highness, instead he will be ‘His Grace’ once duke.

Kent will go to the current duke’s eldest son George (known as Earl of St Andrews) and after him to his son Edward (known as Lord Downpatrick) - when it ceases to be royal. After that it will go to Edward’s eldest son; if he doesn’t have a son it will go to eldest (in primogeniture) of the male-line descendants of George’s brother Nicholas (Lord Nicholas Windsor) - who has three sons. So, it is very unlikely this one will go extinct.

The current Dukedom of York will go extinct upon Andrew’s death as he has no sons.

 

[Alison H]

The dukedom of York is traditionally granted to the monarch's second son, ever since Henry VII's time, but it's always been a bit unlucky ... a lot of Dukes of York have ended up becoming monarchs as their elder brothers have died young, and others have had no male heirs of their own.

 

[Biri]

The dukedom of York is traditionally granted to the monarch's second son, ever since Henry VII's time, but it's always been a bit unlucky ... a lot of Dukes of York have ended up becoming monarchs as their elder brothers have died young, and others have had no male heirs of their own.

And it's very probable that Andrew will still be alive by the time Louis marries.

 

[Queen Claude]

The dukedom of York is traditionally granted to the monarch's second son, ever since Henry VII's time, but it's always been a bit unlucky ... a lot of Dukes of York have ended up becoming monarchs as their elder brothers have died young, and others have had no male heirs of their own.

Which is why the York dukedom has remained a royal dukedom and not become a non-royal dukedom. My guess is that the next time the dukedom of York is granted, it will be a lifetime peerage.

 

[An Ard Ri]

Which is why the York dukedom has remained a royal dukedom and not become a non-royal dukedom. My guess is that the next time the dukedom of York is granted, it will be a lifetime peerage.

Yes I agree and also with the recent example of the dukedom of Edinburgh being granted for life only.

 

[meeralakshmi]

The dukedom of York is traditionally granted to the monarch's second son, ever since Henry VII's time, but it's always been a bit unlucky ... a lot of Dukes of York have ended up becoming monarchs as their elder brothers have died young, and others have had no male heirs of their own.

That’s only happened because the dukedom of York didn’t have male heirs or reverted to the crown which made it available. It wasn’t and isn’t intended to be always available, like any other royal dukedom it’s intended to be inherited by male heirs and become non-royal after two generations.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

That’s only happened because the dukedom of York didn’t have male heirs or reverted to the crown which made it available.

That's what @Alison H meant by "unlucky".

like any other royal dukedom it’s intended to be inherited by male heirs and become non-royal after two generations.

The "only two generations in male line are royal" rule dates to 1917, so it was effective when Andrew (1986) and Albert (George VI) (1920) were created Duke of York. But when George V (1892), Frederick (1784) or Edward (1760) were created Duke of York many people expected at least male-line heirs to the throne to be princes in perpetuity, though there was no clear rule. And even earlier, in medieval times, there was no solid distinction between royal and non-royal descendants.

 

[PrincessofEurope]

The issue with that is the titles of their spouses and children.

Any children of Charlotte and Louis should not be titled I firmly believe this.

in regards to the spouse it is harder but part of me thinks they should also remain untitled

 

[Andy T]

There's a further option.

Edward has the Duke of Edinburgh title as a life peerage but Earl of Wessex, Earl of Forfar and Viscount Severn are all hereditary peerages. It would be possible to grant dukedoms as life peerages exclusively to the child of the monarch and "lesser" titles as hereditary peerages to the couple so that Charlotte would be Princess Royal/Duchess of X and Countess of Z and her spouse would use the lesser title (Earl of Z). Louis could be Duke of Y and Earl of Z, and his spouse Countess of Z.

In this case, the oldest child would inherit the lesser title of Earl/Countess and the others Lord/Lady (as is the case for Edward's daughter, Lady Louise, even though she could be Princess Louise). The Prince of Wales & Duchess of Cornwall are an example of a couple using different titles (although Camilla was of course legally Princess of Wales).

That said, conferring a hereditary title upon marriage to a male spouse of a female royal is becoming increasingly risky, imo, given current attitudes towards marriage. If the a title is given (as with the Earl of Snowdon) and the couple divorces without an heir being born, the title passes to the first legitimate child of the spouse's subsequent marriage. Entails need to be carefully worded....

 

[tommy100]

That is certainly an option.
Personally I’d be quite happy for the main royals to be known by their Prince/Princess titles and any spouses be known by ducal titles without the HRH. For example using W&C as an example (but never one that would use it as a direct heir and future Queen) William could have been known as HRH Princes William and Catherine imagining she wasn’t a working royal and carried on a career in her chosen field as The Duchess of Cambridge. That way the couple can have joint titles but the born royal who is doing official duties still has a “royal title”. The royal dukes are already given subsidiary titles of lower ranking anyway so a situation like we have seen with The Dukedom of Edinburgh and James would be a good way forward IMO.

 

[meeralakshmi]

That said, conferring a hereditary title upon marriage to a male spouse of a female royal is becoming increasingly risky, imo, given current attitudes towards marriage. If the a title is given (as with the Earl of Snowdon) and the couple divorces without an heir being born, the title passes to the first legitimate child of the spouse's subsequent marriage. Entails need to be carefully worded....

The solution is to give the hereditary peerage to the princess and her husband can use it as a courtesy title. If they get divorced and he remarries he loses it.

 

[meeralakshmi]

That is certainly an option.
Personally I’d be quite happy for the main royals to be known by their Prince/Princess titles and any spouses be known by ducal titles without the HRH. For example using W&C as an example (but never one that would use it as a direct heir and future Queen) William could have been known as HRH Princes William and Catherine imagining she wasn’t a working royal and carried on a career in her chosen field as The Duchess of Cambridge. That way the couple can have joint titles but the born royal who is doing official duties still has a “royal title”. The royal dukes are already given subsidiary titles of lower ranking anyway so a situation like we have seen with The Dukedom of Edinburgh and James would be a good way forward IMO.

So would the ducal titles come with the prefix of His/Her Grace then (the style of a non-royal duke/duchess)? Wallis was made Her Grace The Duchess of Windsor but that’s because the monarchy really didn’t like her.

 

[tommy100]

By default they would, as all ducal titles do. I’m off the opinion that there is no need for spouses of royals to automatically become HRH and working royals with the exception of wives or husbands of direct heirs. That way a spouse may continue to do their own thing rather than have to take on royal duties and the working royal family is kept smaller (if indeed the BRF is to become slimmed down)

 

[Andy T]

I think Spain is a bit different as its royal family and nobility has historically not been as discriminatory towards their female members to the same degree compared to most other countries. As early as the 1840s, Queen Isabel II conferred hereditary titles of nobility on her half-sisters (as well as her half-brothers) from her mother's morganatic second marriage. In the non-royal nobility, most noble titles were inheritable by daughters in the absence of sons, even before the implementation of gender-equal primogeniture in 2006. And Infantas have always been treated in the same way as Infantes in terms of when they were or were not permitted to share their rank and title with their spouses and children.

King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden, as you pointed out, reformed Swedish royal titulature to treat daughters less unequally to sons. In addition to introducing duchessdoms for princesses in 1980, he dropped the male-only title of "Sveriges Arvfurste" upon the birth of Princess Madeleine in 1982 so that she and her brother Prince Carl Philip would have the same titles. And of course, he titled his female-line grandchildren in the same manner as his male-line grandchildren.

But up to now the public decisions of King Charles III regarding titles haven't yet shown signs of following King Carl XVI Gustaf's example. King Charles III continues to refer to his niece for example as Mrs. Michael Tindall (whereas King Carl XVI Gustaf refers to even the British members of his extended family as e.g. Mrs. Ursula Ambler, not Mrs. James Ambler) and recently decided to maintain the old male-line rule so that his male-line grandchildren became Prince and Princess while female-line grandchildren will remain Mr. and Mrs., unlike in the Swedish royal family.

If traditional UK rules of address apply, "Mrs. Zara Tindall" would be used if Zara were divorced, whereas Mrs. Michael Tindall is used because she took his name and they are still married (whether Michael Tindall is alive or not). That is not to say I condone the system, I hasten to add.

I have a feeling that Charles III will leave the situation as is for the duration of his reign. He has no daughters and it is likely that William will be King when decisions need to be taken about styles and titles for his younger children (and their children) as they marry. He will also, if he chooses, be able to remove the HRH from his brother's children if he decides to restrict its use to siblings and children of those in the direct line...