Questions about British Styles and Titles 3: Aug 2023 -

[Iluvbertie]

The Duke of Rothesay title is William most senior title in Scotland so George wouldn't use that.

I would imagine George would use the courtesy title Earl of Chester as that is the subsidiary title of Willaim's most senior title - Prince of Wales and Earl of Carrick in Scotland as that is the most senior subsidiary title of Duke of Rothesay for William in Scotland.

If the title Duke of Lancaster were removed then Charles would have no title at all while William would still have Duke of Cambridge if Duke of Cornwall were removed. I can't see the titles Duke of Lancaster and Duke of Cornwall being removed while allowing other peerage titles to continue but I could see the actually Duchies being abolished so the government got the income rather than Charles and William.

As far as Australia is concerned Charles would remain Charles III until we voted, in a referendum to remove him. I am not sure how the other realms would have to go about removing him. I would imagine we would respect the wishes of the British people and no longer refer to him as King of the UK but he rarely gets anything more than The King or Charles III anyway so it would be a moot point.

 

[Somebody]

Hypothetical question: If the monarchy was abolished during the time of the current king, but the British aristocratic system (since it's independent) remained, what would be the titles of those titled in the line of succession be?

I would presume that Andrew, Edward, Harry, Richard, Edward Kent, and Alexandra would keep their aristocratic titles (as the Dukes of York, Edinburgh, Sussex, Gloucester, and Kent, and the Honourable Lady Ogilvy). There would be no change for James or Louise as they never used their princely titles (so they would remain Earl of Wessex as a courtesy and Lady Louise). Archie, Lilibet, Beatrice, and Eugenie would lose their princely titles, with the former two more than likely reverting to the Mountbatten-Windsor (since their aristocratic courtesy titles were never used) and the latter two continuing to use their married names, just without their princely titles (Mrs. Edoardo Mapelli-Mozzi and Mrs. Jack Brooksbank).

I'd say that Beatrice and Eugenie as daughters of a duke would be entitled to the courtesy style of 'Lady', so they would be Lady Beatrice Mapelli-Mozzi and Lady Eugenie Brooksbank.

Archie and Lilibet could decide to use their courtesy styles: Lord Dumbarton and Lady Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor (or not).

But Anne and Michael only have princely titles. Would they become the Lady Laurence and Lord Michael Windsor?

If Anne would indeed no longer be entitled to the style of 'princess royal', as the daughter of a duke she would be 'Lady Anne Laurence' and Michael would indeed be Lord Michael Windsor as the younger son of a duke. His children would no longer qualify for their Lord/Lady styles (as their style depends on being the great-grandchildren in male line of a monarch).

 

[Durham]

The King would be Duke of Lancaster. William would remain Duke of Cornwall & Cambridge & eventually of Lancaster as well in the normal course of events.

What then happens to Cornwall after his death? Lancaster & Cambridge would pass to George as per but Cornwall? By custom it either merges with the crown or is given to the monarch’s eldest living son but in this scenario neither of these two possibilities would exist.

And going forward would Lancaster (always held in the past by queens regnant) be inheritable by the eldest child of a future Duke of Lancaster & Cambridge regardless of sex or would it pass by male primogeniture? So hypothetically a daughter (the eldest child) inherits Lancaster & an eldest son Cambridge?

Of even greater interest would be what happens to the duchies’ properties. I wager they would pass into government (state) control with possibly some negotiated financial settlement with the previous monarch & maybe the heir apparent for his/their lifetime(s) only.

 

[meeralakshmi]

Changes I’d like to see to British royal/noble titles:

- Allow women who marry British princes/lords to be Princess/Lady (her own name)
- Create princesses duchesses in their own right (if they would be eligible for it had they been male)
- Allow peerages to be inherited by women (as in they go to the oldest child instead of the oldest son)
- Allow male and/or same-sex spouses to use their spouses’ titles
- Allow titles to pass through the female line but royal titles end when they would in the male line

Basically treat female royals/nobles and male spouses/spouses of female royals/nobles the same way they would treat male royals/nobles and their female spouses.

 

[classyjackie]

Changes I’d like to see to British royal/noble titles:
- Allow titles to pass through the female line but royal titles end when they would in the male line

Basically treat female royals/nobles and male spouses/spouses of female royals/nobles the same way they would treat male royals/nobles and their female spouses.

I agree with all of your points but especially that one. Charles or a future monarch should change George V's 1917 Letters Patent to not just the children of the monarch, and grandchildren of the monarch in the male line having HRH/Prince/ess but also the female line. It is a bit outdated to have that still have that.

I think Sweden is by far the best at how they have handled the passing of titles for the next generation. All grandchildren of the King receive Prince/Princess but only those who will be working royals in the future are HRH and members of the royal house. I also love that titles can be passed by women.

 

[meeralakshmi]

I agree with all of your points but especially that one. Charles or a future monarch should change George V's 1917 Letters Patent to not just the children of the monarch, and grandchildren of the monarch in the male line having HRH/Prince/ess but also the female line. It is a bit outdated to have that still have that.

I think Sweden is by far the best at how they have handled the passing of titles for the next generation. All grandchildren of the King receive Prince/Princess but only those who will be working royals in the future are HRH and members of the royal house. I also love that titles can be passed by women.

The one thing Sweden hasn’t done is allow the crown princess/queen regnant to share her title with her spouse, would love to see that as well.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I can see Charles or William limiting further who is HRH Prince/Princess. I can't see either expanding those. That would go against the 'smaller royal family' concept.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the LPs limiting HRH to only the children of the heir in each generation so George's children will get it but not Charlotte's nor Louis'.

 

[meeralakshmi]

I can see Charles or William limiting further who is HRH Prince/Princess. I can't see either expanding those. That would go against the 'smaller royal family' concept.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the LPs limiting HRH to only the children of the heir in each generation so George's children will get it but not Charlotte's nor Louis'.

That’s not what I would prefer but it would be fine as long as Charlotte and Louis and their spouses and kids were treated the same (so either both Charlotte and Louis would receive peerages or neither and either both Charlotte and Louis’ spouses and kids would receive titles, whether royal or non-royal, or neither).

 

[EllieCat]

Iluvbertie: "I can see Charles or William limiting further who is HRH Prince/Princess. I can't see either expanding those. That would go against the 'smaller royal family' concept."

I hope in their efforts to appease everyone that they don't limit so much of all that pertains to monarchy that there is nothing left...

 

[Curryong]

But, if the monarchy survives into her adulthood, Charlotte receives the honorific of Princess Royal? It’s unique and only given to the (eldest) daughter. I’d hate to see that disappear.

Sir Tim Laurence seems to be quite OK with his wife being a princess and he ‘only’ a knight, even if he has had a distinguished senior career in the RN.

How do we know what the attitudes towards peerages are going to be in a generation or two? They might well be regarded as ridiculous or antiquated or surplus to requirements. I don’t see too many young Britons today of whatever background thinking hereditary peerages or indeed royal titles are of much value at all, really.

 

[meeralakshmi]

But, if the monarchy survives into her adulthood, Charlotte receives the honorific of Princess Royal? It’s unique and only given to the (eldest) daughter. I’d hate to see that disappear.

Sir Tim Laurence seems to be quite OK with his wife being a princess and he ‘only’ a knight, even if he has had a distinguished senior career in the RN.

How do we know what the attitudes towards peerages are going to be in a generation or two? They might well be regarded as ridiculous or antiquated or surplus to requirements. I don’t see too many young Britons today of whatever background thinking hereditary peerages or indeed royal titles are of much value at all, really.

Charles has said he’ll create Charlotte a duchess in her own right so hopefully that’s what happens. Imo I think it’s fine to get rid of the Princess Royal title since it comes from when women couldn’t be the heir or spare. Princesses should be given peerages like princes instead (and their spouses be made consorts of their peerages like the wives of princes). Sure Tim is fine with not having a title but that doesn’t change that it’s unfair that he doesn’t have one, especially when he’s a working royal in all but name.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Charles has said he’ll create Charlotte a duchess in her own right so hopefully that’s what happens. Imo I think it’s fine to get rid of the Princess Royal title since it comes from when women couldn’t be the heir or spare. Princesses should be given peerages like princes instead (and their spouses be made consorts of their peerages like the wives of princes). Sure Tim is fine with not having a title but that doesn’t change that it’s unfair that he doesn’t have one, especially when he’s a working royal in all but name.

Can you provide a link to Charles saying that - not to 'sources' but to Charles himself saying that.

 

[meeralakshmi]

Can you provide a link to Charles saying that - not to 'sources' but to Charles himself saying that.

I admit that there's no quote from Charles himself. However I don't see why Charles or William wouldn't actually do it, she is the first princess to not lose her position as the spare to a younger brother. Allowing princesses to hold peerages in their own right would be the next step in the direction of gender equality after adopting absolute primogeniture.

Under the current rules of title acquisition through marriage, which have not been adapted since medieval times, neither husbands of titled women nor same-sex spouses of titled people automatically gain any title from the marriage. Thus the strange situation where the Duke of Edinburgh's cousin Lord Ivar Mountbatten, whose first marriage was to a woman and second marriage to a man, shares his title with his divorced ex-spouse (a divorcée retains an ex-husband's title in the British system) but not his current spouse.

She brings up an excellent point, Lord Ivar Mountbatten’s husband should have the title of Lord James Mountbatten or Lord James Coyle if he prefers to keep his surname.

I do think the consort title in general needs looking at. Prince Philip was known as that, presumably as for him to have had the title of King would outrank Queen given the male primogeniture at the time. But if it’s now all equal, surely it should be Queen Consort and King Consort (so it’s clear who the regnant is) or all consorts should be Prince or Princess. And male consorts should be crowned with their spouse as Camilla will be.

Would love to see this.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

[...] Princesses should be given peerages like princes instead (and their spouses be made consorts of their peerages like the wives of princes). Sure Tim is fine with not having a title but that doesn’t change that it’s unfair that he doesn’t have one, especially when he’s a working royal in all but name.

Excellent point. It is often argued that husbands of royal women are fine with or even prefer not sharing the titles of their wives. In the first place, it is impossible to know how often that is true - perhaps some husbands would be fine with or even prefer to share their wives' titles, but have the sense and discretion not to air their feelings publicly. But even if, hypothetically, all royal husbands truly preferred to remain untitled, it would remain unfair that women were not given the same choice. For example, the present Duchess of Kent declared at some point that she renounced her HRH (according to numerous media reports, though I have not found her original statement), but the Palace continues to refer to her as such. Perhaps Katharine Kent too would be fine with not sharing her husband's title at all, but she is not allowed that choice as she is a woman married to a man.

 

[meeralakshmi]

Excellent point. It is often argued that husbands of royal women are fine with or even prefer not sharing the titles of their wives. In the first place, it is impossible to know how often that is true - perhaps some husbands would be fine with or even prefer to share their wives' titles, but have the sense and discretion not to air their feelings publicly. But even if, hypothetically, all royal husbands truly preferred to remain untitled, it would remain unfair that women were not given the same choice. For example, the present Duchess of Kent declared at some point that she renounced her HRH (according to numerous media reports, though I have not found her original statement), but the Palace continues to refer to her as such. Perhaps Katharine Kent too would be fine with not sharing her husband's title at all, but she is not allowed that choice as she is a woman married to a man.

We all know how Henrik felt about not getting his wife’s title and Pieter van Vollenhoven expressed that he felt it was unfair that his wife and kids were princes and princesses but he wasn’t. There have been cases of spouses (male and female) declining or choosing to not use titles because they had other titles/positions that were more important to them, Madeleine’s husband declined receiving his wife’s title because becoming a Swedish citizen would interfere with his work and the Countess of St Andrews and Lady Frederick Windsor choose to not use their titles because they’re known by their unmarried names professionally. Margrethe’s sister’s husband also declined being made a prince of Denmark, my guess is that it was because he was the head of a minor German royal family and didn’t want a title not held in his own right that overshadowed that.

There have also been examples of women wanting to share their titles with their spouses but not being able to, here’s a quote from Queen Victoria on the matter: “It is a strange omission in our constitution that while the wife of a king has the highest rank and dignity in the realm after her husband assigned to her by law, the husband of a queen regnant is entirely ignored by the law.” We all know she wanted to make Albert king consort but wasn’t allowed to because he was a foreigner. In the case of Philip Elizabeth wanted him to have a higher title than just Prince Philip but eventually agreed to it because it was what the government wanted (for the same reason they didn’t want Albert to be king, even making Philip a prince was controversial to them). However she made sure to give him precedence over everyone besides her.

 

[Somebody]

There have also been examples of women wanting to share their titles with their spouses but not being able to, here’s a quote from Queen Victoria on the matter: “It is a strange omission in our constitution that while the wife of a king has the highest rank and dignity in the realm after her husband assigned to her by law, the husband of a queen regnant is entirely ignored by the law.” We all know she wanted to make Albert king consort but wasn’t allowed to because he was a foreigner. In the case of Philip Elizabeth wanted him to have a higher title than just Prince Philip but eventually agreed to it because it was what the government wanted (for the same reason they didn’t want Albert to be king, even making Philip a prince was controversial to them). However she made sure to give him precedence over everyone besides her.

At first he was 'just' the Duke of Edinburgh, making him a prince of the realm was his upgrade.

 

[meeralakshmi]

At first he was 'just' the Duke of Edinburgh, making him a prince of the realm was his upgrade.

Correct, however Elizabeth wanted a title such as Prince of the Commonwealth or Prince of the Realm.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

For the behind-the-scenes discussions on upgrading the Duke of Edinburgh's title that were mentioned by meeralakshmi, beginning with Queen Elizabeth II's suggestion in 1954 that her husband be created "Prince of the Commonwealth", see here:

Duke of Edinburgh: Title of Prince

At first he was 'just' the Duke of Edinburgh, making him a prince of the realm was his upgrade.

The correspondence in the above link also discusses the inconsistencies and disagreements over whether Philip was already a Prince or not (for example, the 1948 letters patent on the titles of his children referred to him as His Royal Highness Prince Philip, but there was a draft version of the same letters patent in which King George VI specifically edited out the "Prince").

Some pointed out that regardless of the official debate, he was already called Prince by the general public:

Evening Standard article, February 8, 1957:

No one has dared to clarify the situation, but surely the Duke's, and presumably the Queen's, view was made clear in 1954, when a Royal Society of Arts medal, which he chose, was struck with the inscription "Prince Philip, President."

Thus the Duke, who signs as Philip, the prerogative of a Prince, has vindicated the name, by which the man in the street has always called him.​

Draft press release from the Prime Minister's Office, 1957:

Draft Guidance to Press

The Prime Minister and his senior colleagues felt that the great services which the Duke of Edinburgh has rendered to the country and his unique contribution to the life of the Commonwealth, culminating in the tour which he has just concluded, ought to receive some significant mark of recognition.

They therefore proposed to The Queen that the Duke of Edinburgh should formally be given the title and dignity of a Prince, and The Queen was graciously pleased to approve this proposal. In giving effect to it The Queen has let it be known that she would like the Duke of Edinburgh henceforth to be known as His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, thus confirming a title which common usage and general affection have already largely accorded to him.

The effect of the announcement is really to give His Royal Highness the same position and title that he would have if he had been born a member of the Royal Family. It does not, of course, affect the succession. But it does signify appreciation of the unselfish devotion of His Royal Highness to the public interest.​

 

[meeralakshmi]

Changes I’d like to see to British royal/noble titles:

- Allow women who marry British princes/lords to be Princess/Lady (her own name)
- Create princesses duchesses in their own right (if they would be eligible for it had they been male)
- Allow peerages to be inherited by women (as in they go to the oldest child instead of the oldest son)
- Allow male and/or same-sex spouses to use their spouses’ titles
- Allow titles to pass through the female line but royal titles end when they would in the male line

Basically treat female royals/nobles and male spouses/spouses of female royals/nobles the same way they would treat male royals/nobles and their female spouses.

While I basically said so in my conclusion and quoted someone else saying so male and/or same-sex consorts should not only receive the title of king/queen consort but also be crowned alongside their spouses.

There have also been examples of women wanting to share their titles with their spouses but not being able to, here’s a quote from Queen Victoria on the matter: “It is a strange omission in our constitution that while the wife of a king has the highest rank and dignity in the realm after her husband assigned to her by law, the husband of a queen regnant is entirely ignored by the law.”

Victoria brings up a valid point, it’s quite unfair that the wife of a king is always a queen but the husband of a queen isn’t entitled to any title at all and what title he gets depends on how the government sees him. If you were to ask the British public I can imagine they would think Philip deserved to be king more than Camilla deserved to be queen. To be clear I have nothing against Camilla being queen but Philip deserved to be king (or at least prince consort) just as much, in the letter Victoria said this quote in she argued for all future husbands of a queen regnant to have the title of prince consort but the government wasn’t interested in that.

Likely because until 2013 the law was written to keep a man on the throne whenever possible so the government wasn’t interested in setting in stone what to call the husband of a queen regnant because it was such a rare circumstance that they felt they could handle on a case-by-case basis (indeed the husbands of the five married queens regnant so far have all had different titles).


The ill-fated Princess Charlotte of Wales wanted to make Leopold king consort and since the UK has no tradition for what to call a male consort she may have been able to.

 

[meeralakshmi]

There have been cases of spouses (male and female) declining or choosing to not use titles because they had other titles/positions that were more important to them, Madeleine’s husband declined receiving his wife’s title because becoming a Swedish citizen would interfere with his work and the Countess of St Andrews and Lady Frederick Windsor choose to not use their titles because they’re known by their unmarried names professionally.

Can't believe I forgot the most famous example of a woman declining the use of her husband's title, Camilla chose to not be known as the Princess of Wales due to the title's association with Diana and instead opted for Duchess of Cornwall which was the next greatest title she held by marriage.

 

[Somebody]

Camilla did use her husband's title. Both Princess of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall were based on her husband's title.

 

[meeralakshmi]

Camilla did use her husband's title. Both Princess of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall were based on her husband's title.

She didn’t use her husband’s title that the wife of a Prince of Wales would normally use. Normally the wife of a Prince of Wales will be known as the Princess of Wales, not the Duchess of Cornwall.

 

[Somebody]

She didn’t use her husband’s title that the wife of a Prince of Wales would normally use. Normally the wife of a Prince of Wales will be known as the Princess of Wales, not the Duchess of Cornwall.

True but still both titles are her husband's titles. He was still the Duke of Cornwall; which was the only reason she was able to use that title.

 

[meeralakshmi]

True but still both titles are her husband's titles. He was still the Duke of Cornwall; which was the only reason she was able to use that title.

Correct but she declined the use of the default title of her husband’s she would be expected to go by. Normally when a woman marries a peer she uses his official title rather than a subsidiary title.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Duke of Cornwall isn't a 'subsidiary title'. In fact from the day of his mother's accession until mid-1958 that was his primary title. Subsidiary titles are titles that aren't used by the primary title holder but are used by their heirs.

In different parts of the UK Charles did, and William now does, use different titles.

Camilla didn't use the Princess of Wales title but she still was The Princess of Wales and the evidence for that is quite simple - look at what she was called in Chester - The Countess of Chester as her husband was then The Earl of Chester. That title was given to him in the same Letters Patent that created him Prince of Wales and so Camilla could only use the title Countess of Chester if she was also The Princess of Wales.