Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Warren]

Royal titles (eg Duke of York, Earl of Wessex) aren't strictly speaking "peerage" titles, but Royal creations. When the Queen created the York title for Prince Andrew the rules governing who can inherit the Dukedom were laid down. Unless these "rules" are changed by the Sovereign to allow a female successor, York will revert to the Crown on Andrew's death.

 

[Warren]

Hello Warren, I don't think we're talking so much about precedence as we are the difference between styles and titles?
...It would make sense that the title would be Andrew's and Edward's distinguishing feature.

OK, take the Dukes of York, Gloucester and Kent. All are Princes of the United Kingdom, all are Royal Dukes, and all are Royal Highnesses. What distinguishes them in the "pecking order" is proximity to the Sovereign, which is otherwise called precedence.

The Duke of York and the Earl of Wessex "outrank" the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent not because of their titles or styles, but because Andrew and Edward are the sons of the Sovereign while Richard and Edward Kent are the grandsons of a Sovereign.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie will not loose their titles when they become 18. Titles are not taken away from you. Even Princess Diana and Sarah, Duchess of York did not loose their titles. They loss the right to HRH and I believe that is the only thing that can be taken from you.

If the Queen issues new Letters Patent, changing the LPs from 1917 limiting the title HRH Prince/Princess to only the children of the heir to the throne for instance then both Beatrice and Eugenie would lose their HRH etc. That is exactly what happened in 1917 when various Princes and Princesses lost their titles.

Diana and Sarah lost the HRH because it came with the marriage and went when the marriages ended.

The style they used after their divorces was that of a divorced woman. If Sarah remarries she will cease to be eligible to use the Duchess of York style at all as she would be the wife of another man.

 

[Iluvbertie]

BeatrixFan, I thought the same thing as you, but then I read this

This is correct.

If Charles dies before becoming King there will be no Duke of Cornwall et. al. until William becomes king and he has a son.

William could still be created Prince of Wales by the Queen if she so chose.

George III was Prince of Wales but never Duke of Cornwall.

The Duke of Cornwall MUST satisfy TWO conditions - he must be the heir to the throne AND the eldest living son of the monarch. If he doesn't satisfy both of those criteria then he can't be the Duke of Cornwall as the situation currently stands.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The following question popped in my head last week and I wasn't able to finde the answer online, so but I have a feeling, that someone here has the answer.

The second son on the british king / queen has the title "Duke of York", currently it's Andrew. So, when will Harry become "Duke of York"? When his father becomes king? When Andrews dies? If before - what happens to Andrew and his daughters?

Thanks for the answer,
Akela

The second son of the British monarch is not always Duke of York - e.g. Victoria's second son was created Duke of Edinburgh and the York title was available due to the previous holder having died in 1828.

The Duke of York title, like all other dukedoms, except Cornwall, is inheritable into the second generation BUT since the late 1400s it has never had a male heir to inherit unless the holder has also become king in which case the title has merged with the crown as happened with both George V and George VI (but also the previous holders). Something similar has happened with the Duke of Clarence title with the titleholder usually dying without a male heir and hence the title becoming extinct after each creation.

If Andrew remarries and has a son that son will inherit the Duke of York title and in a couple of generations, like the Kent and Gloucestor, titles in the next generation, the holder will no longer be an HRH. If Andrew doesn't remarry and have a son then the title will be available for regrant when Andrew dies, assuming no adjustment to the LPs has been issued in the meantime allowing for female inheritance of the title.

As Harry will probably marry within the next five years or so and I expect Andrew to be alive when that happens Harry won't be created Duke of York. The next person to hold that title will probably be William's second son or possibly even William's son's second son.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

The Duke of Cornwall MUST satisfy TWO conditions - he must be the heir to the throne AND the eldest living son of the monarch. If he doesn't satisfy both of those criteria then he can't be the Duke of Cornwall as the situation currently stands.

If we look at it from this side: isn't then the title of HRH The Duchess of Cornwall higher than the title of HRH The Princess of Wales? Because the Duchess of Cornwall is not only the wife of the Heir Apparent but of the eldest son of the souverain.... Could have made for a good chuckle somewhere...

 

[branchg]

If we look at it from this side: isn't then the title of HRH The Duchess of Cornwall higher than the title of HRH The Princess of Wales? Because the Duchess of Cornwall is not only the wife of the Heir Apparent but of the eldest son of the souverain.... Could have made for a good chuckle somewhere...

They are equal since both are held by the wife of the heir to the throne. Her precedence flows from her husband's place in the line of succession and has nothing to do with her particular title or style.

 

[Frothy]

Baroness Thatcher is not the Rt. Hon because she is a Baroness but because she is a member of the Privy Council that advises the Queen. This is a strictly political honour and denotes seniority. Her title is "Her Ladyship" not "Her Excellency" which (in England) is most associated with ambassadors and evaporates once the office is surrendered.

Being able to wear the coronet and ermine at the opening of Parliament is a fun perk of being a peer. If somebody has a photo of a British life peer in full regalia it would be great if they could post it!

 

[yvr girl]

Royal Widows

Two questions.

1. Has any royal widow enjoyed any romance after the death of her husband?

2. I know that divorcees lose their titles if they get married again, but what about widows?

 

[Sister Morphine]

Two questions.

1. Has any royal widow enjoyed any romance after the death of her husband?

2. I know that divorcees lose their titles if they get married again, but what about widows?

1. There were rumours about Queen Victoria and John Brown, but I haven't seen any substantial proof that the two of them carried on anything. She was utterly devoted to Albert from the day he died to the day she died.


2. I believe if a widow remarries, she would lose the title she had prior to the remarriage unless she was styled as something from birth. Then I think she would keep the title. I think if you were born a Princess and your husband dies and you choose to remarry, you are still a Princess. If you were MADE a Princess and your husband dies and you choose to remarry, you would lose the title. Someone with a little more understand of the system might be able to clarify that.

 

[BeatrixFan]

A widow who remarries loses her late husband's titles. For example, Raine Spencer is not Raine Spencer at all as she married after Earl Spencer. She also then divorced her Count de Chambrun so she is Lady Dartmouth but she returned to the style of The Dowager Countess Spencer. Once you marry, you take the other persons name which is why Iona, Dowager Duchess of Argyll won't marry her Swedish partner. She'll lose her title if she does and go back to being a plain Mrs.

 

[sirhon11234]

Which titles are reserved for men who marry into the royal family.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Men get the bum deal and only get a title if the Queen offers one. Mark Phillips turned a title down, as did Angus Ogilvy. Tim Lawrence was never offered. It really depends on the monarch of the day.

 

[selrahc4]

1. Has any royal widow enjoyed any romance after the death of her husband?

Katherine Parr married again after the death of Henry VIII.

Outside Britain, there is Caroline of Monaco, for one.

 

[Avalon]

Katherine Parr married again after the death of Henry VIII.

Catherine Parr married Thomas, Baron Seymour of Sudeley and Lord High Admiral (younger brother of Jane Seymour, 3rd wife of Henry VIII).
Thomas Seymour's elder brother, Edward Seymour, was Lord Protector and 'ruled' in the name of Edward VI. Since Catherine was married to the younger Seymour, Anne Stanhope (Edward Seymour's wife) claimed precedence over her.

 

[Princess Robijn]

BeatrixFan, I thought the same thing as you, but then I read this:

If the eldest son of the Sovereign dies, his eldest son does not inherit the Dukedom. However, if the eldest son should die without children, his next brother obtains the Dukedom. Underlying these rules is the principle that only a son of the Sovereign—never a grandson, even if he is the Heir Apparent—may be Duke of Cornwall. It is possible for an individual to be Prince of Wales and Heir Apparent without being Duke of Cornwall. For example, King George II's heir-apparent, the future George III, was Prince of Wales, but not Duke of Cornwall (because he was the King's grandson, not the King's son).

STYLE AND TITLES OF THE PRINCE OF WALES
The title 'Prince of Wales' may be possessed only by the eldest son of a Sovereign.

There is no automatic succession to this title, which at every vacancy becomes merged in the Crown, and is renewed only by the Sovereign.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page5659.asp

 

[Zonk]

Catherine Parr married Thomas, Baron Seymour of Sudeley and Lord High Admiral (younger brother of Jane Seymour, 3rd wife of Henry VIII).
Thomas Seymour's elder brother, Edward Seymour, was Lord Protector and 'ruled' in the name of Edward VI. Since Catherine was married to the younger Seymour, Anne Stanhope (Edward Seymour's wife) claimed precedence over her.

Poor Catherine...she sure didn't know how to pick a winner! What awful taste in men!

I believe there was a constant battle between Catherine (who felt as the Queen Dowager) she should take precedence over Anne. Even though she remarried.

 

[Jo of Palatine]

A widow who remarries loses her late husband's titles. For example, Raine Spencer is not Raine Spencer at all as she married after Earl Spencer. She also then divorced her Count de Chambrun so she is Lady Dartmouth but she returned to the style of The Dowager Countess Spencer. Once you marry, you take the other persons name which is why Iona, Dowager Duchess of Argyll won't marry her Swedish partner. She'll lose her title if she does and go back to being a plain Mrs.

Are you sure about it? I read once that the widow of a peer who marries a commoner retains her noble title. Have to look that question up again, though.

Here's the quote: According to Black, "f marrying into a lower rank of the peerage or with a commoner [a peeress] retains her title. But this [is] by courtesy only, unless she is a peeress in her own right. " From: Titles and Forms of Address: A Guide to Their Correct Use. London: A. & C. Black Ltd., Third Edition, 1932, p. 33.

 

[branchg]

Widows who remarry lose their title and styles held through marriage. Same thing for divorcees.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Iona isn't a peeress in her own right but I remember there being a big bet on between a few friends of mine. Some said that she would lose the Duchess title, some said she'd keep it. We phoned Burkes and they said that she would lose her title and would become Mrs Lars Swensen and although she could use Iona, Duchess of Argyll socially and it probably wouldn't be question (a la Raine), at court she'd be presented to the Queen as Mrs Lars Swensen not as Her Grace, the Dowager Duchess of Argyll.

 

[Heiress Victoria]

I have a doubt.. what would have happaned if The Queen had died when Charles and Diana were separated but not yet divorced.. (when she still had the tilte of HRH the princess of wales).. would she had been crown queen??..

 

[BeatrixFan]

No. If they legally seperated with motion to divorce then the divorce would have been rushed through and finalised and Diana would have been Diana, Princess of Wales or Charles might have granted her a peerage.

 

[sirhon11234]

quote

No. If they legally seperated with motion to divorce then the divorce would have been rushed through and finalised and Diana would have been Diana, Princess of Wales or Charles might have granted her a peerage.

Well what if that didn't happen and Charles ascended the throne and Diana was crowned Queen Consort. Then they divorced would she be known as Diana, Queen Consort of G.B. or Charles would grant her, her own peerage.

 

[Sister Morphine]

If Charles ascended the throne before they could divorce, I don't know if they would have gone through with it. I mean, have you heard of a Queen divorcing a King?

 

[BeatrixFan]

It doesn't work like that. You don't seperate for a laugh - you seperate to divorce. The divorce would have been rushed through. You couldn't have a Queen Consort running about who wasn't married to a King, which she wouldn't be once they divorced. The divorce would have been sped through, Diana would have been given a peerage and she wouldn't have been crowned Queen Consort.

 

[Sister Morphine]

It doesn't work like that. You don't seperate for a laugh - you seperate to divorce. The divorce would have been rushed through. You couldn't have a Queen Consort running about who wasn't married to a King, which she wouldn't be once they divorced. The divorce would have been sped through, Diana would have been given a peerage and she wouldn't have been crowned Queen Consort.

Not always. Some people do separate and then get back together. It happens quite frequently.

 

[sirhon11234]

quote

If Charles ascended the throne before they could divorce, I don't know if they would have gone through with it. I mean, have you heard of a Queen divorcing a King?

King Henry VIII and the Shah of Iran divorced.

 

[Sister Morphine]

King Henry VIII and the Shah of Iran divorced.

I guess I meant recently. I know that the King and Queen of Belgium nearly separated, but worked it out.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Not always. Some people do separate and then get back together. It happens quite frequently.

Not when you're the Prince of Wales. Once it's announced, it happens.

 

[Sister Morphine]

Not when you're the Prince of Wales. Once it's announced, it happens.

I know this is all a moot point, but don't you think it in the realm of possibility that if after they announced their separation, the Queen suddenly died and he became King, they'd rescind that?