Questions about British Styles and Titles 3: Aug 2023 -

[meeralakshmi]

Of course Elizabeth and Camilla were different, Elizabeth was regnant... The husband of Mary 1 was a King in his own right so they couldn't demote him. As for Scotland , it was very complex and cannot be explained in a post.

The husband of Mary II was also going to be made king consort but he asked to be a co-ruler.

 

[meeralakshmi]

The title of king consort has been used three times in the UK (once in England for the husband of Mary I

Coincidentally the husband of Mary I was also named Philip.

 

[Hallo girl]

I am going to bed... we are going round in circles. well off the original topic.

 

[LauraS3514]

There was a story that the Late Queen brought in that rule as it had been brought to her attention that a young Andrew was parading back and forward in front of staff/ guards to ensure bows and stand to attention. Not sure how true.

I recall reading (a long time ago) that Queen Mary had caught her granddaughter, Princess Elizabeth of York, doing the same. Maybe it's just one of those urban legend-type things.

I also recall reading that at another time, that same granddaughter responded to a staff member asking "how are you, little lady?" with "I am not a little lady, I am Princess Elizabeth!" Queen Mary promptly marched her granddaughter over to the staff member to apologize, saying, "This is Princess Elizabeth, who hopes one day to become a lady."

 

[muriel]

Was Tim even offered a title though?

I doubt it. Tim & Anne married in 1992, the annus horribilis. That was the year the marriages of 3 of her children ended in separation or divorce, Windsor Castle burnt down and the monarch agreed to pay tax. The War of the Wales' still raged, Fergie had been pictured topless, and there was plenty of drama around. That was certainly not a time that HM would, IMO, offered Tim a title.

 

[muriel]

Many people have also asked why Camilla is queen but Philip wasn't king.

I suspect it is only those that don't understand how royal titles work that might ask that question.

 

[meeralakshmi]

I suspect it is only those that don't understand how royal titles work that might ask that question.

King is not a higher rank than queen, that is a sexist misconception. The title of king consort has been used three times in the UK (once in England for the husband of Mary I and twice in Scotland for the first two husbands of Mary, Queen of Scots). George, Albert, and Philip did not receive the title of king because the government didn’t want foreign princes as kings.

 

[Hallo girl]

Mary Queen of Scots first husband was Francis 11 , Dauphin then King of France therefore king in his own right and never King of Scotland.

 

[muriel]

King is not a higher rank than queen, that is a sexist misconception. The title of king consort has been used three times in the UK (once in England for the husband of Mary I and twice in Scotland for the first two husbands of Mary, Queen of Scots). George, Albert, and Philip did not receive the title of king because the government didn’t want foreign princes as kings.

Whilst I do not have the historical context to discuss the use of the King Consort title in the examples you site, what is clear is that was a very long time ago.

In contemporary times, it is generally accepted that King is a higher title than Queen, and that is why we do not have the concept of King Consort today when you have a Queen Regnant. And this is not just in the UK. Neither the Dutch nor the Danish conferred such a title to the consort of the four Queen Regnant we have had in those countries in the last century or so.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I will respond to the general discussion about kings consort here: Title & Role of a Consort. Not because there is anything wrong with discussing it in this thread, but because the same arguments tend to arise in discussions about kings consort regardless of the specific country involved.

Mary Queen of Scots first husband was Francis 11 , Dauphin then King of France therefore king in his own right and never King of Scotland.

He was King of Scotland (consort). As explained by this website which compiles historical papers documenting titles of monarchs:

"Since the 13th century, the Kings of France when married to women, who were territorial rulers of their own rights, did not use their titles in the French documents (e.g., Philip IV, Philip V, Charles VIII, Louis XII, Francis I, Francis II). However, in documents issued for their wives' territories the Kings of France could use their titles. For example, Philip IV was named King of Navarra, Louis XII, Francis I were named Dukes of Brittany, Francis II was named King of Scotland."​

France. Titles of European hereditary rulers

He was referred to in Scottish documents as King of Scotland when he was still the Dolphin of Viennois (i.e. crown prince of France):

“Franciscus et Maria, Dei gratia Rex et Regina Scotorum ac Delphinus et Delphina Viennen.”

“Frances and Marie be the Grace of God King and Queen of Scottis Daulphin and Daulphines of Viennoys”​

Scotland. Titles of European hereditary rulers

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Regarding the recent discussion of possible future changes to the system of royal titles... I don’t believe we know the Prince of Wales’s opinion of gender discrimination in titles, but there has been some indication that he might want female consorts to use their own forenames instead of their husbands’.

His views may have evolved since 2011 and may further evolve by the time he becomes King, and it is possible that the leaks in 2011 misrepresented his views in some manner, but for whatever it is worth:


When the then Prince William of Wales was engaged to be married to Catherine Middleton, he allegedly wanted his wife to be called Princess Catherine. Queen Elizabeth II allegedly denied his alleged request.

Nonetheless, William allegedly felt so strongly about his alleged wishes that he had his spokesman issue a statement – on the record, not “allegedly”. This statement (which I’ve bolded below) was interpreted by some royal watchers as not-so-subtly encouraging the public to colloquially refer to his wife as “Princess Catherine” even though her official title on marriage was HRH The Duchess of Cambridge.

December 12, 2010:

“"He says he was born Prince William and wants to continue to be known as that," says a courtier. "He wants Kate to become Princess Catherine."”

Access Restricted

April 29, 2011 (wedding day):

“Explaining the slightly confusing picture, a palace spokesman said: "She is not a princess in her own right. That title has not been conferred on her. Her title is that of duchess. So she is not Princess Catherine. And to call her Princess William of Wales is misleading."”

Royal wedding: William and Kate to be Duke and Duchess of Cambridge

Queen gifts grandson highest rank in British peerage, meaning Kate Middleton will not officially become a princess

www.theguardian.com

May 1, 2011 (two days after the wedding):

“Although the Prince's spokesman said he was "honoured" to become the Duke of Cambridge, he had let it be known that he would prefer to remain Prince William and for his wife to become "Princess Catherine".
[…]
In an attempt to get round the issue, the Palace let it be known that people who wanted to call Catherine "Princess" were welcome to do so.

After Friday's Royal wedding, Paddy Harverson, the Prince of Wales' communications secretary, suggested the public be encouraged to use the names Prince William and Princess Catherine if they preferred.

He said: "I think it's absolutely natural that the public might want to call them Prince William and Princess Catherine and no one is going to have any argument with that."”​

 

[meeralakshmi]

Regarding the recent discussion of possible future changes to the system of royal titles... I don’t believe we know the Prince of Wales’s opinion of gender discrimination in titles, but there has been some indication that he might want female consorts to use their own forenames instead of their husbands’.

His views may have evolved since 2011 and may further evolve by the time he becomes King, and it is possible that the leaks in 2011 misrepresented his views in some manner, but for whatever it is worth:


When the then Prince William of Wales was engaged to be married to Catherine Middleton, he allegedly wanted his wife to be called Princess Catherine. Queen Elizabeth II allegedly denied his alleged request.

Nonetheless, William allegedly felt so strongly about his alleged wishes that he had his spokesman issue a statement – on the record, not “allegedly”. This statement (which I’ve bolded below) was interpreted by some royal watchers as not-so-subtly encouraging the public to colloquially refer to his wife as “Princess Catherine” even though her official title on marriage was HRH The Duchess of Cambridge.

December 12, 2010:

“"He says he was born Prince William and wants to continue to be known as that," says a courtier. "He wants Kate to become Princess Catherine."”​

​

Access Restricted

April 29, 2011 (wedding day):

“Explaining the slightly confusing picture, a palace spokesman said: "She is not a princess in her own right. That title has not been conferred on her. Her title is that of duchess. So she is not Princess Catherine. And to call her Princess William of Wales is misleading."”​

​

Royal wedding: William and Kate to be Duke and Duchess of Cambridge

Queen gifts grandson highest rank in British peerage, meaning Kate Middleton will not officially become a princess

www.theguardian.com

May 1, 2011 (two days after the wedding):

“Although the Prince's spokesman said he was "honoured" to become the Duke of Cambridge, he had let it be known that he would prefer to remain Prince William and for his wife to become "Princess Catherine".​

[…]​

In an attempt to get round the issue, the Palace let it be known that people who wanted to call Catherine "Princess" were welcome to do so.​

​

After Friday's Royal wedding, Paddy Harverson, the Prince of Wales' communications secretary, suggested the public be encouraged to use the names Prince William and Princess Catherine if they preferred.​

​

He said: "I think it's absolutely natural that the public might want to call them Prince William and Princess Catherine and no one is going to have any argument with that."”​

It feels a bit ironic that a female head of state would be so adamant about adhering to patriarchal traditions, Victoria on the other hand went against or attempted to go against multiple. William was the first of the two grandchildren of Elizabeth with the title of prince to get married so wives of princes receiving the title of Princess (her own name) rather than Princess (husband’s name) could have begun with him and his generation. If Catherine and Meghan had become Princess Catherine and Princess Meghan people may have asked if Jack (who married Eugenie a few months after Harry and Meghan married) should become Prince Jack even if that still wouldn’t have been likely to happen.

 

[VictoriaB]

It feels a bit ironic that a female head of state would be so adamant about adhering to patriarchal traditions, Victoria on the other hand went against or attempted to go against multiple. William was the first of the two grandchildren of Elizabeth with the title of prince to get married so wives of princes receiving the title of Princess (her own name) rather than Princess (husband’s name) could have begun with him and his generation. If Catherine and Meghan had become Princess Catherine and Princess Meghan people may have asked if Jack (who married Eugenie a few months after Harry and Meghan married) should become Prince Jack even if that still wouldn’t have been likely to happen

I suspect the majority of people in the UK (and Commonwealth for that matter) wouldn’t have a clue who Jack Brooksbank is or care what he’s called.

The only people in the UK who seem to be bothered about titles are those who have them. The majority of folks couldn’t give a fig whether 800 families get to pass a title through the female line or what Charlottes future husband is called or whether Edward is Duke of Edinburgh or Earl of Wessex. They are more concerned about NHS waiting lists.

Personally I’d like to see no new Royal or Noble titles with the exception of King, Queen and Prince of Wales (or Crown Prince or Duke of Cornwall if that’s what it takes to mollify the welsh).

Reform the House of Lords by removing the Lords and make it a truly representative, elected second chamber. By all means continue making knights and Dames for those who excel in their field but no courtesy titles. The wife or husband of a Knight remains Mrs/Ms/ Miss or Mr and the wife or husband of a Dame likewise.

And if Lord Ivar Mountbatten’s husband wants to call himself Lady Ivar Mountbatten, go for it.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The only people in the UK who seem to be bothered about titles are those who have them. The majority of folks couldn’t give a fig whether 800 families get to pass a title through the female line or what Charlottes future husband is called or whether Edward is Duke of Edinburgh or Earl of Wessex. They are more concerned about NHS waiting lists.

Fully agreed with this, other than the first sentence. The governing class in the UK is extremely bothered by the idea of titles passing through the female line. This is clear because all governments, regardless of political party, have strongly resisted reform in this area despite the fact that a large majority of voters, across all political parties, are in favor of it (per polling) and so are a majority of the hereditarily titled people in the House of Lords, and despite the fact that the governments have been willing to implement many other, much more time- and political-capital-consuming reforms to the titles system.

 

[VictoriaB]

Fully agreed with this, other than the first sentence. The governing class in the UK is extremely bothered by the idea of titles passing through the female line. This is clear because all governments, regardless of political party, have strongly resisted reform in this area despite the fact that a large majority of voters, across all political parties, are in favor of it (per polling) and so are a majority of the hereditarily titled people in the House of Lords, and despite the fact that the governments have been willing to implement many other, much more time- and political-capital-consuming reforms to the titles system.

I’m sure voters are in favour of reform of the primogeniture rules. I don’t know what question was asked. If it’s do you support the rights of females to succeed equally to males you will get a clear response in favour. If the question is what issue matters most to you, I would lay odds you will get NHS, immigration, crime, cost of housing, cost of living. I doubt there would be a majority saying titles reform.

I was in the UK twice last year visiting family & friends and I can honestly say not once did I hear anyone complaining that the government was doing nothing about the law of primogeniture.

The Government is planning to reform the House of Lords to remove the right of all hereditary peers to sit. I believe (and am happy to be corrected) that a lot of the estates that go with titles are now left in trust for tax purposes. Hereditary peerages are no longer created except within the Royal Family. So reform of titles will be nice for those families with hereditary titles preventing them from dying out and makes a nice point about gender equality but practically, it’s meaningless.

 

[Somebody]

I'd be surprised if William starts stripping titles from anyone under his reign. It would look particularly mean spirited - especially in regards to Beatrice and Eugenie who have done nothing wrong other than have bad parents. I think the most we might see under William is a limiting of titles - no titles for Archie and Lilibet's spouse (Archie) and children (both). I can see him changing the rules so HRH can only pass down the direct heirs line (e.g. William's line, George's line and George's eldest child's line).

How would it work for William to limit (the use of) titles for wives of any prince in the BRF? By British custom, many wives, including those of peers or children of peers, carry the names of their husbands... That's not something that William can forbid.

And how is he supposed to ensure that a specific peer cannot pass on his title to his children? The rules were established at the time of the creation of the peerage; and the children of a Duke are Lords and Ladies. Something he could do in this respect is issue a LP to change the rule that children of non-peer princes will loose their style as 'Lord' and 'Lady' but that would only apply to Lord Frederick Windsor and Lady Gabriella Kingston - and I doubt he would do that. Note that he doesn't need to do anything for the children of a princess not receiving a title, that is current practice.

And he could indeed decide to limit the number of HRH's to only children and not (male-line) grandchildren of monarchs. Given that the queen already set that in motion (with Louise and James), it would have been easiest if Charles had had the guts to do that - but he was probably afraid about how that would come across.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I’m sure voters are in favour of reform of the primogeniture rules. I don’t know what question was asked. If it’s do you support the rights of females to succeed equally to males you will get a clear response in favour. If the question is what issue matters most to you, I would lay odds you will get NHS, immigration, crime, cost of housing, cost of living. I doubt there would be a majority saying titles reform.

I was in the UK twice last year visiting family & friends and I can honestly say not once did I hear anyone complaining that the government was doing nothing about the law of primogeniture.

The Government is planning to reform the House of Lords to remove the right of all hereditary peers to sit. I believe (and am happy to be corrected) that a lot of the estates that go with titles are now left in trust for tax purposes. Hereditary peerages are no longer created except within the Royal Family. So reform of titles will be nice for those families with hereditary titles preventing them from dying out and makes a nice point about gender equality but practically, it’s meaningless.

I don’t agree with applying those arguments/questions only to gender-equal succession and not to male-only succession – but will continue this discussion (at a later date) in Female Succession and Related Issues.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

How would it work for William to limit (the use of) titles for wives of any prince in the BRF? By British custom, many wives, including those of peers or children of peers, carry the names of their husbands... That's not something that William can forbid

Technically, it is not merely custom but (unwritten) law, at least in England.

That said, we recently had the government arguing in parliament that it would be silly and wrong to legalize a form of title creation that King Charles already performed in 2023, so I am not sure how much laws matter when it comes to titles these days.

(For those confused by what my comment above references, see:

The British Nobility thread 2: Sep 2022 -

The Duchess of Rutland announced that she will using the online platform Substack to launch an exciting project of her memoirs and writing. The Duchess of Rutland makes exciting announcement after daughter's wedding

www.theroyalforums.com

Royal Dukes, Royal Duchies and Royal Ducal Titles 2: 2022 -

But the fact that Louise was never in line for either title is proof she was sidelined. While James won't inherit his father's ducal title he will inherit the others. Louise won't, even James should die young, leaving her as Edward's only child and heir. Expressing sympathy for James but not...

www.theroyalforums.com

 

[anonymousnoble]

How would it work for William to limit (the use of) titles for wives of any prince in the BRF? By British custom, many wives, including those of peers or children of peers, carry the names of their husbands... That's not something that William can forbid.

And how is he supposed to ensure that a specific peer cannot pass on his title to his children? The rules were established at the time of the creation of the peerage; and the children of a Duke are Lords and Ladies. Something he could do in this respect is issue a LP to change the rule that children of non-peer princes will loose their style as 'Lord' and 'Lady' but that would only apply to Lord Frederick Windsor and Lady Gabriella Kingston - and I doubt he would do that. Note that he doesn't need to do anything for the children of a princess not receiving a title, that is current practice.

And he could indeed decide to limit the number of HRH's to only children and not (male-line) grandchildren of monarchs. Given that the queen already set that in motion (with Louise and James), it would have been easiest if Charles had had the guts to do that - but he was probably afraid about how that would come across.

He could limit the use of Lord and Lady by simply barring "the grandchildren of the sons of any such Sovereign in the direct male line (besides the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales) to have and enjoy in all occasions the style and title enjoyed by the children of Dukes of these realms".

Other than that, the use of HRH by a wife of a British prince IS just a "convention", as stated in the Letters Patent of 1996 of Queen Elizabeth when she stripped HRH from divorced wives of those with HRH.

Royal Styles and Titles of Great Britain: Documents

 

[Somebody]

He could limit the use of Lord and Lady by simply barring "the grandchildren of the sons of any such Sovereign in the direct male line (besides the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales) to have and enjoy in all occasions the style and title enjoyed by the children of Dukes of these realms".

That is exactly what I stated as option and would only impact Lord Frederick (and his wife) and Lady Gabriella but not Archie's children; as Archie will eventually become the Duke of Sussex and as such his children will have (or could use) the styles of Lord and Lady (and prior to that be styled as children of an earl based on Harry's subsidiary title; so Lord for eldest son, Lady for all daughters and the Hon. for any other sons).

Other than that, the use of HRH by a wife of a British prince IS just a "convention", as stated in the Letters Patent of 1996 of Queen Elizabeth when she stripped HRH from divorced wives of those with HRH.

Royal Styles and Titles of Great Britain: Documents

The Duke of Windsor is indeed an example where his wife was explicitly forbidden from carrying the style of royal highness, so William could indeed go that route and specifically target Archie's wife and forbid her from using the style of royal highness. I doubt that would be a route he is willing to go.

 

[meeralakshmi]

Archie will eventually become the Duke of Sussex and as such his children will have (or could use) the styles of Lord and Lady (and prior to that be styled as children of an earl based on Harry's subsidiary title; so Lord for eldest son, Lady for all daughters and the Hon. for any other sons).

Even prior to inheriting the dukedom of Sussex Archie’s children will be styled as the children of a non-royal duke (so Earl of Dumbarton for his oldest son and lord/lady for everyone else).

 

[Somebody]

Even prior to inheriting the dukedom of Sussex Archie’s children will be styled as the children of a non-royal duke (so Earl of Dumbarton for his oldest son and lord/lady for everyone else).

Can you explain your reasoning? The hypothetical situation being discussed is when great-grandchildren are no longer styled as children of a non-royal duke (or as anonymousnoble puts it: "He could limit the use of Lord and Lady by simply barring "the grandchildren of the sons of any such Sovereign in the direct male line (besides the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales) to have and enjoy in all occasions the style and title enjoyed by the children of Dukes of these realms"."). So, if that LP no longer applies, on what basis would they still be styled as children of a non-royal duke?!

My reasoning was that Archie's children would be styled based on the 'Earl of Dumbarton' title (as that would be the title he would use if he wasn't a prince). Edward's children were also styled as children of an Earl while he was the Earl of Wessex; not as those of a Duke - and this is also the practice within other noble families using subsidiary titles.

 

[meeralakshmi]

The hypothetical situation being discussed is when great-grandchildren are no longer styled as children of a non-royal duke

I see, I missed that part. In your hypothetical Archie’s oldest son would be styled Lord Kilkeel.

Edward's children were also styled as children of an Earl while he was the Earl of Wessex; not as those of a Duke - and this is also the practice within other noble families using subsidiary titles.

Because Edward was a royal earl who declined royal titles for his children so they were styled as children of a non-royal earl (now duke). The most senior subsidiary title of a royal dukedom goes to the oldest son of the duke’s oldest son because said grandson won’t have a royal title. In the case of a non-royal holder of a subsidiary title their children are styled as children of someone with that title.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I am not sure I understand what is being discussed but it seems people are discussing the hypothetical titles for Archie's children./grandchildren. Why hypothetical when we already have clear examples?

The Duke of Gloucester - royal. Son, not royal is Earl of Ulster and grandson, not royal, Baron Culloden.
The Duke of Kent - royal. Son, not royal is Earl of St Andrews and grandson, not royal, Baron Downpatrick. Younger son - Lord Nicholas and his sons who are The Honourable - as grandsons of a Duke through a younger son.

With those clear examples - and Archie is the same relationship to a Sovereign as The Dukes of Gloucester and Kent - male line grandson via a younger son his descendants would be as follows:

- eldest son - Baron Kilkeel until Harry dies and the Earl of Dumbarton and finally Duke of Sussex - not royal however
- youngers sons and daughters - Lord and Lady

 

[meeralakshmi]

- eldest son - Baron Kilkeel until Harry dies and the Earl of Dumbarton and finally Duke of Sussex - not royal however

Pretty sure Earl of Dumbarton will go to Archie’s oldest son even before Harry dies because Archie doesn’t use that title.

 

[Somebody]

I am not sure I understand what is being discussed but it seems people are discussing the hypothetical titles for Archie's children./grandchildren. Why hypothetical when we already have clear examples?

The Duke of Gloucester - royal. Son, not royal is Earl of Ulster and grandson, not royal, Baron Culloden.
The Duke of Kent - royal. Son, not royal is Earl of St Andrews and grandson, not royal, Baron Downpatrick. Younger son - Lord Nicholas and his sons who are The Honourable - as grandsons of a Duke through a younger son.

With those clear examples - and Archie is the same relationship to a Sovereign as The Dukes of Gloucester and Kent - male line grandson via a younger son his descendants would be as follows:

- eldest son - Baron Kilkeel until Harry dies and the Earl of Dumbarton and finally Duke of Sussex - not royal however
- youngers sons and daughters - Lord and Lady

The hypothetical part was William removing the 'Lord and Lady' from great-grandchildren of a Sovereign in male-line whose father is not a peer himself. However, I argued that would not impact Archie's children as he is to be a peer himself.

The remaining question would be what title would be used by Archie's eldest son as long as Harry as still the Duke of Sussex. Your examples don't apply as it one generation further down the line. So, what title would George (now Earl of St Andrews) have used had his father not yet been the Duke of Kent but still 'Prince Edward of Kent'. Would he have used 'Lord' (as child of a prince; just like Michael's children still use Lord and Lady) or would he have used a (more prestigious) subsidiary title and if so, would it be Earl of St Andrews (as it was not in use by his father (HRH prince Edward) or Baron Downpatrick (as he was the grandson of the Duke of Kent and not his son)? And what about baby Alexander (now duke of Ulster), had his grandfather died a few months after instead of before his birth? How would he have been known initially? Lord Alexander Windsor, Earl of Ulster or Baron Culloden?

 

[meeralakshmi]

So, what title would George (now Earl of St Andrews) have used had his father not yet been the Duke of Kent but still 'Prince Edward of Kent'. Would he have used 'Lord' (as child of a prince; just like Michael's children still use Lord and Lady) or would he have used a (more prestigious) subsidiary title and if so, would it be Earl of St Andrews (as it was not in use by his father (HRH prince Edward) or Baron Downpatrick (as he was the grandson of the Duke of Kent and not his son)? And what about baby Alexander (now duke of Ulster), had his grandfather died a few months after instead of before his birth? How would he have been known initially? Lord Alexander Windsor, Earl of Ulster or Baron Culloden?

I think George and Alexander would have still been born Earl of St Andrews and Earl of Ulster because subsidiary titles of royal dukedoms are for heirs without royal titles.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

So, what title would George (now Earl of St Andrews) have used had his father not yet been the Duke of Kent but still 'Prince Edward of Kent'. Would he have used 'Lord' (as child of a prince; just like Michael's children still use Lord and Lady) or would he have used a (more prestigious) subsidiary title and if so, would it be Earl of St Andrews (as it was not in use by his father (HRH prince Edward) or Baron Downpatrick (as he was the grandson of the Duke of Kent and not his son)? And what about baby Alexander (now duke of Ulster), had his grandfather died a few months after instead of before his birth? How would he have been known initially? Lord Alexander Windsor, Earl of Ulster or Baron Culloden?

I think George and Alexander would have still been born Earl of St Andrews and Earl of Ulster [...]

I agree.

If, hypothetically, their paternal grandfathers were “only” Dukes but not royal Princes, then George and Alexander would have been styled as courtesy peers from birth (“Lord Downpatrick” and “Lord Culloden” if they were born during their grandfathers' lifetimes).

It would make no sense if the grandfathers’ status as royal Princes resulted in their senior grandsons using lower courtesy titles (“Lord George Windsor” or “Lord Alexander Windsor”) compared to the courtesy titles they would receive if their grandfathers weren’t princes. So, I think that possibility can be ruled out.


The remaining question is which of their paternal grandfathers’ subsidiary peerages George and Alexander would use by courtesy if their grandfathers were alive.

In the non-royal peerage, the general rule is that an individual’s courtesy title should not be higher than the individual’s rank.

An ordinary non-royal Duke’s oldest marital son holds the rank of a Marquess. However, a King’s marital grandson outranks an ordinary non-royal Duke.

Logically, that ought to mean the oldest marital son of a King’s marital grandson ranks at least as high (if not higher) than the oldest marital son of a non-royal Duke.

Therefore, George and Alexander must rank with Marquesses at the minimum (does anyone know whether there is a higher rank they hold in virtue of being legitimate male-line great-grandsons of a sovereign?) whether their grandfathers are alive or not – so it would be unproblematic for them to use Earldoms as their courtesy titles either way.

 

[Somebody]

Would he also agree with this for his own children and grandchildren? Will be interesting.

But again if this is the plan (allegedly) why wait? Especially where Andrew is concerned. It would be better than this mess now.

William isn't the king yet. He cannot force his father to do what he wants. For now, he can try to influence his father but ultimately his father makes the decision towards honours.

If William indeed intends to strip 'grandchildren in male-line' from the style of royal highness and the title of prince(ss) - maybe with the exception of those born before 1980 or so, that would be consistent with the 'practice' that was already introduced for Edward's children by queen Elizabeth. For Andrew and Harry he would need a different reason (for example damaging the monarchy; or (maybe easier) 'no longer working for the firm') unless he wants to limit the style and title to only the heirs of each generation - but that would impact other family members, such as Anne and Edward, who faithfully served the crown all/most of their lives. So, I would not recommend him doing so.

Keeping HRH and prince(ss) for children of monarch and heirs - maybe with the requirement that they need to commit to work for the royal family; so, if they quit doing so, they will loose that style and title after a specified age.

 

[GondorHasNoPants]

Keeping HRH and prince(ss) for children of monarch and heirs - maybe with the requirement that they need to commit to work for the royal family; so, if they quit doing so, they will loose that style and title after a specified age.

This is where I would go, adding a Code of Conduct as well. You follow the code, balancing privileges (titles, styles, allowances, homes) with responsibilities (behaviour, duties, choosing a suitable spouse). If you can't, or don't want to, that's absolutely fine, but then you have to live as a private citizen instead.