Questions about British Styles and Titles 3: Aug 2023 -

[Tatiana Maria]

Probably because of the British tradition of married women taking on their husbands' first and last names (though I didn't realize that isn't necessarily the case when a titled woman marries an untitled man).

Here is a more detailed guide from peerage bible Debrett’s on addressing an Honourable married to a Mr.:

Daughters of a Baron, Baron and Baroness, Titles, Forms Of Address | Debrett's

A daughter of a baron bears the courtesy style of 'The Hon' . When she is unmarried this style is followed by her forename (eg The Hon Rose Hays). After marriage she drops the use of her forename and uses her surname only (eg The Hon Mrs Smythe). The style of 'The Hon' is not used before...

web.archive.org

Daughters of a Baron

A daughter of a baron bears the courtesy style of 'The Hon' .

When she is unmarried this style is followed by her forename (eg The Hon Rose Hays). After marriage she drops the use of her forename and uses her surname only (eg The Hon Mrs Smythe). The style of 'The Hon' is not used before 'Miss'.

The style of 'The Hon' is only used on the envelope in correspondence, in written descriptions (usually only on the first mention) and in formal documents. It is never used in conversation or on invitations or on visiting cards, when the correct style is 'Mrs', 'Miss' or 'Ms'.


How to Address the Daughters of a Baron

The recommended (social) style of address is as follows:

Beginning of letter
Dear Miss Hays

End of letter
Yours sincerely

Envelope
The Hon Miss Hays/Hon Mrs Smythe

Joint form of address
Mr Damian and the Hon Mrs Smythe

Verbal communication
Miss Hays/Mrs Smythe

Invitation
Miss Rose Hays/Mrs Damian Smythe

Description in conversation
Miss Hays/Mrs Smythe

List of Directors or Patrons
Rose Hays (or Mrs Damian Smythe)

Place card
Miss Rose Hays/Mrs Damian Smythe

Legal document
Rose Jane Hays commonly called the Honourable Rose Hays​

Regarding the "Mrs. Surname" convention for untitled women (the quote refers to peers' children who are not using a title, but the same would apply to untitled commoners), here is a page which cites "Titles and Forms of Address: A Guide to Their Correct Use. London: A. & C. Black Ltd., Third Edition, 1932." as its source:

When "Mr." is used alone with a surname, it refers to the eldest son (of a Viscount, baron, or commoner). His younger brothers are distinguished from him in speech by using their Christian names, similarly to the use of "Miss." Their wives adopt precisely the same usage, only with "Mrs." instead of "Mr." Mr. Plowden is the eldest son, and Mrs. Plowden is his wife; Mr. Thomas Plowden is a younger son, and Mrs. Thomas Plowden is his wife.​

 

[meeralakshmi]

Could Edward and Sophie’s children have been a prince and princess of Wessex before Edward was made a duke?

 

[Curryong]

I believe that Sophie stated in an interview years ago that hers and Edward’s children were technically a Prince and Princess but she and Edward had chosen not to use those titles. That was when Edward was Earl of Wessex. However the question of the Wessex offsprings’ entitlement to be Prince and Princess seems to have been unclear since the beginning, really.

 

[Iluvbertie]

She wasn’t allowed to be Princess Edward as a royal duchess would though (all the royal duchesses have the title of Princess (husband’s name) but don’t use it because they can just put their own name before Duchess of X).

They only put their own name before Duchess of xxxx after they are divorced, not while married. So Sarah went from HRH The Duchess of York to Sarah, Duchess of York to indicate she was not longer the wife of the Duke of York - same with Diana who only became Diana, Princess of Wales once divorced. While married she was HRH The Princess of Wales - no first name in there are all.

They use the title with no name while married so Sophie is HRH The Duchess of Edinburgh - not Duchess Sophie or Sophie, Duchess of Edinburgh. If she becomes his widow she will the HRH The Dowager Duchess of Edinburgh unless Charles or William allow her to use some other designation.

Could Edward and Sophie’s children have been a prince and princess of Wessex before Edward was made a duke?

Yes

The title itself was irrelevant. They are entitled to be Prince and Princess from birth. The 'of xxxx' only indicates their father's title and isn't actually part of their own title. For many centuries there was no 'of xxxx' but it became an easy way to indicate which branch of the family a person belonged to when there were many cousins with the same names, particularly the grandchildren of Victoria who had a number of granddaughters named after her and grandsons named after Albert.

 

[meeralakshmi]

They only put their own name before Duchess of xxxx after they are divorced, not while married. So Sarah went from HRH The Duchess of York to Sarah, Duchess of York to indicate she was not longer the wife of the Duke of York - same with Diana who only became Diana, Princess of Wales once divorced. While married she was HRH The Princess of Wales - no first name in there are all.

They use the title with no name while married so Sophie is HRH The Duchess of Edinburgh - not Duchess Sophie or Sophie, Duchess of Edinburgh. If she becomes his widow she will the HRH The Dowager Duchess of Edinburgh unless Charles or William allow her to use some other designation.

Fair enough, I guess I was referring to the way they’re referred to rather than their actual style.

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.

Rather than getting rid of the Princess Royal title they could give the title of Prince/Princess Royal to the second child of the monarch, the official spare. It appears that Duke of York is given to the second son of the monarch but that’s only because in the instances it was given it was unable to be inherited; George V ended up becoming king which led the dukedom to merge with the crown so he recreated it for George VI. George VI had no male heirs so the dukedom went extinct upon his death. Elizabeth then recreated the dukedom for Prince Andrew. Prince Andrew also has no male heirs so the dukedom will again become extinct upon his death. If the dukedom of York had been inherited as intended it would have become a non-royal dukedom like all hereditary royal dukedoms are intended to. The second son is also no longer necessarily the spare now that the UK has absolute primogeniture. It’s better that the spare gets an official non-hereditary title rather than the monarchy relying on a peerage that may or may not be available. A Prince/Princess Royal will still need to be given a peerage so their kids can be titled; they could decide to either make the Prince/Princess Royal title personal or allow it to be shared with the spouse but the peerage would be shared with the spouse either way.

When William Douglas married Anne Hamilton, 3rd Duchess of Hamilton he was created Duke of Hamilton for life which permitted him to also use his wife’s subsidiary titles. Would that be an example of a duke jure uxoris in the UK? This happened in Scotland.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

When William Douglas married Anne Hamilton, 3rd Duchess of Hamilton he was created Duke of Hamilton for life which permitted him to also use his wife’s subsidiary titles. Would that be an example of a duke jure uxoris in the UK? This happened in Scotland.

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

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

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

126 Palmer, Peerage Law, pp.133-4.
​

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

 

[meeralakshmi]

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

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

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

​

126 Palmer, Peerage Law, pp.133-4.​

​

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

I see, then there would be precedent for Charlotte’s spouse sharing her peerage if they follow through with granting her one.

 

[PrincessofEurope]

Anne's choice not to have her children titled and later Edward deciding that his children would be Lady and Viscount/Earl has proven to be a great idea.
Limiting the titles to children of the monarch and then to children of the heir seems the best way forward.

When I think of other Monarchies they have a title for the heir - be that PoW, Prince/ss of Orange. Duke/Duchess of Brabant or Prince/ss of Asturias. But after this they have no special title (other than prince or princess) for other children be that the 'spare' etc. I believe that this is the way forward for the British royals as well

 

[Mbruno]

Anne's choice not to have her children titled and later Edward deciding that his children would be Lady and Viscount/Earl has proven to be a great idea.
Limiting the titles to children of the monarch and then to children of the heir seems the best way forward.

When I think of other Monarchies they have a title for the heir - be that PoW, Prince/ss of Orange. Duke/Duchess of Brabant or Prince/ss of Asturias. But after this they have no special title (other than prince or princess) for other children be that the 'spare' etc. I believe that this is the way forward for the British royals as well

In Spain, the children of the monarch who are not the heir have been recently given life dukedoms. in addition to being of course Infantes/ Infantas and HRHs. Infanta Elena for example is the Duchess of Lugo and Infanta Cristina was the Duchess of Palma de Mallorca until her title was rescinded by King Felipe VI. The children of the Infantes/ Infantas are not titled (only the children of the Prince/ Princess of Asturias are now Infantes/ Infantas themselves and HRHs). However, children of Infantes/ Infantas are accorded the same style as Grandees of Spain, which is equivalent to Excellency in English.

It remains to be seen what will happen in Sweden under Queen Victoria. Most of King Carl XVI Gustaf's grandchildren were born before the 2019 reform, so they were both styled HRH and granted a life duchy when they were born. The King's grandchildren who were born after 2019 were also given duchies although only the children of CP Victoria and Prince Daniel retained the HRH style.

 

[PrincessofEurope]

In Spain, the children of the monarch who are not the heir have been recently given life dukedoms. in addition to being of course Infantes/ Infantas and HRHs. Infanta Elena for example is the Duchess of Lugo and Infanta Cristina was the Duchess of Palma de Mallorca until her title was rescinded by King Felipe VI. The children of the Infantes/ Infantas are not titled (only the children of the Prince/ Princess of Asturias are now Infantes/ Infantas themselves and HRHs). However, children of Infantes/ Infantas are accorded the same style as Grandees of Spain, which is equivalent to Excellency in English.

It remains to be seen what will happen in Sweden under Queen Victoria. Most of King Carl XVI Gustaf's grandchildren were born before the 2019 reform, so they were both styled HRH and granted a life duchy when they were born. The King's grandchildren who were born after 2019 were also given duchies although only the children of CP Victoria and Prince Daniel retained the HRH style.

I had forgotten about the Swedish Dukedoms and Spain (though following the divorces in that family I rarely think of the titles they received as they don't seem to use them these days very often)

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I had forgotten about the Swedish Dukedoms and Spain (though following the divorces in that family I rarely think of the titles they received as they don't seem to use them these days very often)

That’s right. In Spain, the title of Infanta/Infante has priority over the title of Duchess/Duke.

Therefore Elena is formally referred to as Infanta - not as Duchess. Only her (then) husband, because he was not an Infante, was referred to as a Duke. See the Spanish Royal House website:

- S.A.R. la Infanta Doña Margarita y el Duque de Soria
- S.A.R. la Infanta Doña Cristina y el Duque de Palma
- S.A.R. la Infanta Doña Elena y el Duque de Lugo

InicioCastellano - Casa Real

Casa Real

www.casareal.es

It is the same in Sweden, where Carl Philip for instance is styled officially as “H.K.H. Prins Carl Philip”, not Duke of Värmland.

H.K.H. Prins Carl Philip

Carl Philip, Prins av Sverige, hertig av Värmland, född den 13 maj 1979. Prins Carl Philip är näst äldsta barn till Kungen och Drottningen.

www.kungahuset.se

Monaco has resumed conferring specific personal titles on cadet royals: Princess Gabriella is Countess of Carladès. But there as well, the Princess title is the one that is used.


So the UK is unique in that Andrew for instance is officially The Duke of York on a daily basis, not Prince Andrew.

The Duke of York

On 13 January 2022, Buckingham Palace announced that, with Queen Elizabeth II's approval and agreement, The Duke of York’s military affiliations and Royal...

www.royal.uk

 

[meeralakshmi]

Is anyone able to explain why if absolute primogeniture wasn’t adopted Charlotte would have been born a lady while her brothers were born princes (IIRC)?

When I think of other Monarchies they have a title for the heir - be that PoW, Prince/ss of Orange. Duke/Duchess of Brabant or Prince/ss of Asturias. But after this they have no special title (other than prince or princess) for other children be that the 'spare' etc. I believe that this is the way forward for the British royals as well

The issue is that in the UK grandchildren of the monarch with royal titles are princes/princesses of their father’s (and now potentially mother’s) peerage, not simply princes/princesses of the UK.

In Spain, the children of the monarch who are not the heir have been recently given life dukedoms. in addition to being of course Infantes/ Infantas and HRHs. Infanta Elena for example is the Duchess of Lugo and Infanta Cristina was the Duchess of Palma de Mallorca until her title was rescinded by King Felipe VI. The children of the Infantes/ Infantas are not titled (only the children of the Prince/ Princess of Asturias are now Infantes/ Infantas themselves and HRHs). However, children of Infantes/ Infantas are accorded the same style as Grandees of Spain, which is equivalent to Excellency in English.

Spouses of royal life peers are made non-royal consorts of the peerages.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Is anyone able to explain why if absolute primogeniture wasn’t adopted Charlotte would have been born a lady while her brothers were born princes (IIRC)?

In 1917, King George V set strict limits on which family members would be Princesses and Princes.

Under his new rule, “the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales” would be a Prince, but no other great-grandchildren of the Sovereign would be Princesses or Princes.

Royal Styles and Titles of Great Britain: Documents

George, Charlotte, and Louis were great-grandchildren of the Sovereign (Elizabeth II) at birth. Therefore, by George V’s rules, only George would have been born a Prince. Charlotte and Louis would (just like Archie and Lilibet) not become Princess and Prince until they became male-line grandchildren of the Sovereign (Charles III).


In 2012, Queen Elizabeth II modified George V’s rule: The new rule is that “all the children of the eldest son of The Prince of Wales” will be Princes and Princesses.

Royal Styles and Titles of Great Britain: Documents

We don’t know whether Queen Elizabeth II implemented this change only because absolute primogeniture was in the pipeline. It is possible she would have made the change no matter what.

 

[meeralakshmi]

In 1917, King George V set strict limits on which family members would be Princesses and Princes.

Under his new rule, “the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales” would be a Prince, but no other great-grandchildren of the Sovereign would be Princesses or Princes.

Royal Styles and Titles of Great Britain: Documents

George, Charlotte, and Louis were great-grandchildren of the Sovereign (Elizabeth II) at birth. Therefore, by George V’s rules, only George would have been born a Prince. Charlotte and Louis would (just like Archie and Lilibet) not become Princess and Prince until they became male-line grandchildren of the Sovereign (Charles III).


In 2012, Queen Elizabeth II modified George V’s rule: The new rule is that “all the children of the eldest son of The Prince of Wales” will be Princes and Princesses.

Royal Styles and Titles of Great Britain: Documents

We don’t know whether Queen Elizabeth II implemented this change only because absolute primogeniture was in the pipeline. It is possible she would have made the change no matter what.

I see, I’m now remembering that the issue would have been that if William’s first child was a girl she would be a lady while a younger brother would be a prince.

And I do think absolute primogeniture was the main reason the change was made because it wouldn’t be fair for the future queen to only be a lady while her younger brother was a prince.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

And I do think absolute primogeniture was the main reason the change was made because it wouldn’t be fair for the future queen to only be a lady while her younger brother was a prince.

I agree that the most important problem with George V’s letters patent was that if Charlotte had been the oldest child, she would have been the anticipated future queen even if she had a younger brother, but her younger brother would have had a higher title (Prince) than she did (Lady).

However, a similar problem exists under Elizabeth II’s letters patent. To illustrate the problem, imagine that George never existed: Charlotte is the oldest child and future queen, and Louis is the second child and future spare. Now imagine that Charlotte and Louis both marry and have children while Charles III is still King and William is still Prince of Wales. According to Elizabeth II’s rule, Louis’s children would be Princes/ses, but Charlotte’s children wouldn’t - even though Charlotte’s oldest child would be a future queen/king. Clearly, it would make no sense for the future queen’s children to be Miss/Master, while the future spare’s children are Prince/Princesses, but that would be the result if Charlotte were the firstborn.

 

[meeralakshmi]

However, a similar problem exists under Elizabeth II’s letters patent. To illustrate the problem, imagine that George never existed: Charlotte is the oldest child and future queen, and Louis is the second child and future spare. Now imagine that Charlotte and Louis both marry and have children while Charles III is still King and William is still Prince of Wales. According to Elizabeth II’s rule, Louis’s children would be Princes/ses, but Charlotte’s children wouldn’t - even though Charlotte’s oldest child would be a future queen/king. Clearly, it would make no sense for the future queen’s children to be Miss/Master, while the future spare’s children are Prince/Princesses, but that would be the result if Charlotte were the firstborn.

Yeah for Elizabeth they had to make Philip a duke so their kids could be titled and then issue LP so the kids could be a prince and princess. If they can issue LP to make the children of a princess and a non-royal duke princes and princesses I don’t see why they can’t do the same to make Charlotte’s spouse a duke consort.

If there were to be another King James would he be James III or James VIII? The regnal number system for the UK is that if a name has been used in England and Scotland a UK monarch will follow whichever country had the higher regnal number. However the last two King James were James I/II in England and Ireland and James VI/VII in Scotland so would a future King James be James III in all of the UK except Scotland where he would be James VIII? The Scots felt that William IV should have been called William III, Edward VII and Edward VIII should have been called Edward I and Edward II, and Elizabeth II should have been called Elizabeth I in Scotland but that didn’t happen. They especially objected to Elizabeth II being called that in Scotland because Elizabeth I was only queen of England. In the movie Red, White & Royal Blue the king is James III, in the book the monarch is instead Queen Mary III.

They’ll probably want William V to be called William IV in Scotland as well.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Is anyone able to explain why if absolute primogeniture wasn’t adopted Charlotte would have been born a lady while her brothers were born princes (IIRC)?

A bit of background:

When Edward VIII and George VI were born they were born HH Prince Edward of York and HH Prince Albert of York ... and their sister HH Princess Mary of York.

In 1898 Queen Victoria issued Letters Patent to make all the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales HRH Prince/Princess so these three children were raised to HRHs and their next brother was born HRH Prince Henry of York in 1900 (the last two were born after George became Prince of Wales).

In 1917 George V restricted the HRH to the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales so George would have been born a Prince but Louis would have only been a Lord along with Charlotte being born a Lady.

However, on 28th October, 2011 the Prime Ministers of the realms agreed to go to absolute primogeniture. That left Elizabeth with a potential dilemma - if Charlotte was born first she would be born Lady Charlotte while George, if born second, would still have been born Prince George. Elizabeth therefore decided to revert to Queen Victoria's Letters Patent regarding the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales and so all three children were born HRH Prince/Princess.

This will need addressing if, in the future George isn't created Prince of Wales or the eldest child is a girl and thus the heir apparent is female but there is a younger brother who is still the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. The intention is good but didn't go far enough and should have been 'the children of the heir apparent in each generation'.

 

[meeralakshmi]

A bit of background:

When Edward VIII and George VI were born they were born HH Prince Edward of York and HH Prince Albert of York ... and their sister HH Princess Mary of York.

In 1898 Queen Victoria issued Letters Patent to make all the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales HRH Prince/Princess so these three children were raised to HRHs and their next brother was born HRH Prince Henry of York in 1900 (the last two were born after George became Prince of Wales).

In 1917 George V restricted the HRH to the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales so George would have been born a Prince but Louis would have only been a Lord along with Charlotte being born a Lady.

However, on 28th October, 2011 the Prime Ministers of the realms agreed to go to absolute primogeniture. That left Elizabeth with a potential dilemma - if Charlotte was born first she would be born Lady Charlotte while George, if born second, would still have been born Prince George. Elizabeth therefore decided to revert to Queen Victoria's Letters Patent regarding the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales and so all three children were born HRH Prince/Princess.

This will need addressing if, in the future George isn't created Prince of Wales or the eldest child is a girl and thus the heir apparent is female but there is a younger brother who is still the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. The intention is good but didn't go far enough and should have been 'the children of the heir apparent in each generation'.

Yeah there are multiple titles they need to work on making gender-neutral for a female heir/monarch (namely Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall, and Duke of Lancaster). The constitution should say Prince/Princess of Wales or heir apparent instead of Prince of Wales and currently Duke of Cornwall is supposed to go to the oldest son of the monarch which means that if a Princess of Wales in her own right has a younger brother Duke of Cornwall will go to him. However Duke of Cornwall has been a subsidiary title of the Prince of Wales so a Princess of Wales in her own right should become Duchess of Cornwall. As for Duke of Lancaster a female monarch should be Duchess of Lancaster, not Duke.

The UK is the only current European monarchy that still downgrades princesses’ titles if they marry morganatically. In every other existing European monarchy princesses keep the title they had before marriage even if they can’t share it with their spouse but in the UK the “of” designation is replaced with Mrs (husband’s name) or whatever title the husband has if any. My guess is that princesses’ untitled husbands have been offered earldoms not just so their kids can be titled but also so the princess’ title isn’t downgraded. I wonder why Angus Ogilvy was offered an earldom but Edoardo and Jack weren’t as Alexandra, Beatrice, and Eugenie are all daughters of the younger son of a monarch. I’m hoping that since they’ve adopted absolute primogeniture they’ll look into their other sexist policies.

Not sure why Beatrice didn’t take on her husband’s comital title and their kids don’t have the prefix of donna.

Yeah there are multiple titles they need to work on making gender-neutral for a female heir/monarch (namely Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall, and Duke of Lancaster). The constitution should say Prince/Princess of Wales or heir apparent instead of Prince of Wales and currently Duke of Cornwall is supposed to go to the oldest son of the monarch which means that if a Princess of Wales in her own right has a younger brother Duke of Cornwall will go to him. However Duke of Cornwall has been a subsidiary title of the Prince of Wales so a Princess of Wales in her own right should become Duchess of Cornwall. As for Duke of Lancaster a female monarch should be Duchess of Lancaster, not Duke.

They should also set in stone what title to give the husband of a female heir/monarch. Ideally he would be Prince of Wales and then king consort but here’s what they could do if they don’t want to do that:

- If she’s the granddaughter of the monarch when she marries they could give her a duchy (they’ve considered doing so for Charlotte so hopefully they’ll do so if necessary for a future female heir) and allow her husband to be duke consort. They could either create him a prince or just give him an HRH like they gave Philip. The couple would be HRH The Duchess of Y and HRH Prince X, Duke of Y/HRH The Duke of Y.
- When she’s Princess of Wales the husband can be HRH The Prince X, Duke of Cornwall and Y.
- When she’s queen the husband can be HM The Prince Consort (so Albert’s title with the queen’s style).

If she’s already Princess of Wales when they marry then he’ll just be Duke of Cornwall. However other monarchs don’t have to follow Elizabeth’s tradition of granting peerages on wedding days.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Yeah there are multiple titles they need to work on making gender-neutral for a female heir/monarch (namely Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall, and Duke of Lancaster). The constitution should say Prince/Princess of Wales or heir apparent instead of Prince of Wales and currently Duke of Cornwall is supposed to go to the oldest son of the monarch which means that if a Princess of Wales in her own right has a younger brother Duke of Cornwall will go to him. However Duke of Cornwall has been a subsidiary title of the Prince of Wales so a Princess of Wales in her own right should become Duchess of Cornwall. As for Duke of Lancaster a female monarch should be Duchess of Lancaster, not Duke.

If the heir is a female then a younger brother can't be Duke of Cornwall as to be Duke of Cornwall or Duke of Rothesay in Scotland the person has to be both the heir apparent AND the eldest son of the Sovereign.

I don't see any need to change titles to the feminine at all just because a female is the heir or the Sovereign.

Duke of Cornwall is NOT a subsidiary title of The Prince of Wales. It is a fully substantive title in its own right and has the advantage of being automatic. The only subsidiary title of The Prince of Wales is Earl of Chester and a title was needed as The Prince of Wales titles isn't a peerage title so, in the theoretical situation where the heir apparent wasn't also a peer via being Duke of Cornwall or having some other peerage title The Prince of Wales title wouldn't raise the holder from commoner status to the peerage but Earl of Chester would.

Legislation would be needed to overturn the charters of the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster to allow for females to hold these titles in their own right and parliament has a lot more pressing concerns that the titles for one or two people who, for the most part, don't use those titles anyway. Many people don't even know who the Duke of Lancaster is.

George VI was asked if he would create Elizabeth as Princess of Wales in her own right and he said words to the effect 'no, The Princess of Wales is always the wife of the Prince of Wales and can't be held by a women in her own right' and it really doesn't matter anyway. I doubt that George will ever be Prince of Wales ... there was opposition to both Charles and William having those titles and I wouldn't be surprised to see the Welsh Assembly vote to ban the title at some point simply as it is a reminder of their conquest by the English.

Not sure why Beatrice didn’t take on her husband’s comital title and their kids don’t have the prefix of donna.


They should also set in stone what title to give the husband of a female heir/monarch. Ideally he would be Prince of Wales and then king consort but here’s what they could do if they don’t want to do that:

- If she’s the granddaughter of the monarch when she marries they could give her a duchy (they’ve considered doing so for Charlotte so hopefully they’ll do so if necessary for a future female heir) and allow her husband to be duke consort. They could either create him a prince or just give him an HRH like they gave Philip. The couple would be HRH The Duchess of Y and HRH Prince X, Duke of Y/HRH The Duke of Y.
- When she’s Princess of Wales the husband can be HRH The Prince X, Duke of Cornwall and Y.
- When she’s queen the husband can be HM The Prince Consort (so Albert’s title with the queen’s style).

If she’s already Princess of Wales when they marry then he’ll just be Duke of Cornwall. However other monarchs don’t have to follow Elizabeth’s tradition of granting peerages on wedding days.

Beatrice didn't take on the comital title as neither Italy nor Britain recognise any Italian titles anymore. That is the same reason why the daughters don't have the prefix. Eduardo has never used that comital title and has made it clear he never intends on doing so.

I think they will cut down on titles going forward even getting rid of any titles for spouses - making the female spouses equal to the male ones by not having the women take on the female form of their husband's titles just as the husbands of princesses don't get the male form of their wives titles or a title in their own right seems fair to do the same for the wives and so the wives can keep their own names rather than show their inferiority to their husband by using his titles.

I can also see no more Dukedoms or other peerage titles - not needed now. It made sense when it stopped the younger sons of a Sovereign from seeking election to the House of Commons but now that that barrier has been removed and, for instance, Harry as Duke of Sussex could decide to stand for such an election there is no need for peerage titles for the younger children.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Thank you for the detailed answer. Just a few minor corrections:

Legislation would be needed to overturn the charters of the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster to allow for females to hold these titles in their own right

The Duchy of Lancaster is held by the Sovereign, no matter the gender. Queen Elizabeth II held the Duchy of Lancaster throughout her reign.
Quoting the Government’s explanation during the parliamentary discussions on absolute primogeniture:

The Duchy of Lancaster is held by the sovereign. We are confident that the Duchy must remain with whomsoever is the monarch. Clearly, the monarch at the moment being a Queen has not created any difficulty in the Duchy of Lancaster being held by the monarch. The attachment of the Duchy to the Crown is now established fact.​

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201213/ldhansrd/text/130214-0002.htm#13021468000617

[...] or Duke of Rothesay in Scotland the person has to be both the heir apparent AND the eldest son of the Sovereign.

The legal advice obtained by the Government in 2012 was that a daughter who is heiress to the throne will automatically be Duchess of Rothesay, and likewise with the other traditional Scottish titles of the heir to the throne.

With regard to the royal titles in Scotland, a number of contributors, not least my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, pointed out that the peerage rules in Scotland are somewhat more generous to women, in some cases anyway. It is certainly our view that in the event of an elder sister becoming heir apparent, the Scottish titles currently held by the Prince of Wales—namely, the Prince and Great Steward of Scotland, the Duke of Rothesay, the Earl of Carrick, Lord of the Isles and Baron of Renfrew—can pass automatically to a female heir apparent. These titles have always hung together and the removal of male bias in the line of succession could therefore not result in the detachment of these titles from the Crown. We have consulted the Court of the Lord Lyon, who is the official heraldry officer for Scotland, on this matter.​

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201213/ldhansrd/text/130214-0002.htm#13021468000617

Duke of Cornwall is NOT a subsidiary title of The Prince of Wales. It is a fully substantive title in its own right and has the advantage of being automatic.

“Subsidiary” simply means secondary. As you’ve pointed out, the son and heir to the throne is only called HRH The Duke of Cornwall when he is in Cornwall. Ordinarily, he is HRH The Prince of Wales, and the Cornwall title is unused, so it is correct to refer to Cornwall as a subsidiary title (when he is not in Cornwall).

The Prince of Wales titles isn't a peerage title

Yes, it is. It is included on the official Roll of the Peerage.

https://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/images/downloads/Roll_of_the_Peerage.pdf

A few further comments:

I don't see any need to change titles to the feminine at all just because a female is the heir or the Sovereign.

So you would be in favor of a female monarch being titled King rather than Queen?

George VI was asked if he would create Elizabeth as Princess of Wales in her own right and he said words to the effect 'no, The Princess of Wales is always the wife of the Prince of Wales and can't be held by a women in her own right' and it really doesn't matter anyway.

Interesting, do you have a source? @Roslyn found more detailed sources on the debate in 1943-44 about the suggestion to create Elizabeth Princes of Wales on her 18th birthday. It doesn’t appear George VI commented publicly on his reasons for refusing (though that doesn’t mean he didn’t comment privately), but he allowed his Private Secretary to brief the press that there was still a remote possibility that George VI might have a son.

Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

Wow! This is exactly my point - an exponentially convoluted sticky mess. Everything in life cannot be politically correct. Although this is a lighthearted subject, political correctness is beginning to degrade society into utter chaos. :/ The fact a situation may be, as you describe it, "an...

www.theroyalforums.com

 

[meeralakshmi]

George VI was asked if he would create Elizabeth as Princess of Wales in her own right and he said words to the effect 'no, The Princess of Wales is always the wife of the Prince of Wales and can't be held by a women in her own right' and it really doesn't matter anyway. I doubt that George will ever be Prince of Wales ... there was opposition to both Charles and William having those titles and I wouldn't be surprised to see the Welsh Assembly vote to ban the title at some point simply as it is a reminder of their conquest by the English.

The main reason Elizabeth wasn’t Princess of Wales in her own right was because at that point there could be no female heirs apparent, only heirs presumptive due to male-preference primogeniture. In all other monarchies a female heir holds the feminine form of the special title for the heir apparent if there is one (Duchess of Brabant, Princess of Orange, and Princess of Asturias). Despite Spain having male-preference primogeniture they allow a female heir presumptive to be Princess of Asturias.

 

[meeralakshmi]

Legislation would be needed to overturn the charters of the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster to allow for females to hold these titles in their own right and parliament has a lot more pressing concerns that the titles for one or two people who, for the most part, don't use those titles anyway. Many people don't even know who the Duke of Lancaster is.

If they get rid of the Prince of Wales title (which I doubt they will) then Duke of Cornwall will become the official title of the heir apparent so they’ll need to allow female heirs to be Duchess of Cornwall.

 

[meeralakshmi]

I think they will cut down on titles going forward even getting rid of any titles for spouses - making the female spouses equal to the male ones by not having the women take on the female form of their husband's titles just as the husbands of princesses don't get the male form of their wives titles or a title in their own right seems fair to do the same for the wives and so the wives can keep their own names rather than show their inferiority to their husband by using his titles.

So spouses won’t be able to become working royals? I don’t think they want that as married-in royals have helped a lot with the royal workload. If male spouses were granted royal titles they would have more people to help out.

 

[Iluvbertie]

So spouses won’t be able to become working royals? I don’t think they want that as married-in royals have helped a lot with the royal workload. If male spouses were granted royal titles they would have more people to help out.

They don't want 'more people'. Charles is reducing the number of working royals not increasing them.

Over the past 15 years the number of working royals has dropped from 12 (Elizabeth II, Philip, Charles, Camilla, Andrew, Edward, Sophie, Anne, Richard, Birgitte, Edward and Alexandra, with William and Harry doing some while also serving in the military - so 14).

Now there are 10 with no part-timers and no intention to replace those currently in their 70s or 80s until George is old enough (probably in 20 years or so until he is full-time).

If Charles wanted more he has Beatrice and Eugenie but they were told about the time William married and Beatrice was leaving university that they weren't going to be wanted or needed as working royals.

The intention is to reduce the working royals to the Sovereign and spouse, the heir and spouse and maybe a third generation and spouse so the intention is 4 - 6.

 

[meeralakshmi]

The intention is to reduce the working royals to the Sovereign and spouse, the heir and spouse and maybe a third generation and spouse so the intention is 4 - 6.

When has Charles said this?

 

[Iluvbertie]

If they get rid of the Prince of Wales title (which I doubt they will) then Duke of Cornwall will become the official title of the heir apparent so they’ll need to allow female heirs to be Duchess of Cornwall.

The official title of the heir apparent is Duke of Cornwall now and there is no need for it to be Duchess of Cornwall at all. Duke of Cornwall is the title that is limited to the heir apparent. There is no such requirement for the title Prince of Wales.

The amount of time and effort for parliament to bother with changing the charter isn't worth it for something so trivial.

There were many members of the Welsh Assemby that weren't happy that Charles didn't consult that body before creating William as Prince of Wales. The Welsh Assembly believes that it had been told that it would be consulted and Charles simply ignored that. If given the vote it is probable that the Welsh Assembly will vote to abolish the title due to its recognistion of the conquest of Wales and the mistreatment of the Welsh by the English over centuries.

 

[meeralakshmi]

The official title of the heir apparent is Duke of Cornwall now and there is no need for it to be Duchess of Cornwall at all. Duke of Cornwall is the title that is limited to the heir apparent. There is no such requirement for the title Prince of Wales.

So a female heir will be addressed as the Duke of Cornwall? That isn't right or fair when female heirs apparent in other countries get female titles.

 

[meeralakshmi]

They should also set in stone what title to give the husband of a female heir/monarch. Ideally he would be Prince of Wales and then king consort but here’s what they could do if they don’t want to do that:

- If she’s the granddaughter of the monarch when she marries they could give her a duchy (they’ve considered doing so for Charlotte so hopefully they’ll do so if necessary for a future female heir) and allow her husband to be duke consort. They could either create him a prince or just give him an HRH like they gave Philip. The couple would be HRH The Duchess of Y and HRH Prince X, Duke of Y/HRH The Duke of Y.
- When she’s Princess of Wales the husband can be HRH The Prince X, Duke of Cornwall and Y.
- When she’s queen the husband can be HM The Prince Consort (so Albert’s title with the queen’s style).

If she’s already Princess of Wales when they marry then he’ll just be Duke of Cornwall. However other monarchs don’t have to follow Elizabeth’s tradition of granting peerages on wedding days.

As well as a male consort's precedence, Victoria thought it was strange that the government didn't specify that and tried to get them to but they weren't interested. Even if a male consort receives the title of king his precedence has to be assigned to him by the queen. As consort of the queen a male consort can also be duke consort of Lancaster even if that isn't what he's addressed as.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

In all other monarchies a female heir holds the feminine form of the special title for the heir apparent if there is one (Duchess of Brabant, Princess of Orange, and Princess of Asturias). Despite Spain having male-preference primogeniture they allow a female heir presumptive to be Princess of Asturias.

Currently, Spain (Prince/ss of Asturias), the Netherlands (Prince/ss of Orange), Luxembourg (Hereditary Grand Duchess/Duke), and Monaco (Hereditary Prince/ss) have legislation that automatically bestows the traditional heir’s title on whomever is the current heir to the throne. It does not matter if the heir is “only” the monarch’s sibling, cousin, etc., or what gender they are, the title is automatic regardless.

Belgium (Duchess/Duke of Brabant) and Liechtenstein (Hereditary Prince) have legislation which automatically grants the traditional heir’s title, but only when the heir is the monarch’s child or grandchild. In Belgium this can be a male or female (grand)child; Liechtenstein currently does not permit female monarchs.

In the Scandinavian countries (Crown Prince/ss) and Britain (Prince/ss of Wales), there is no specific legislation setting the rules of the title.

 

[Sunnystar]

When has Charles said this?

He hasn't. It's been implied and reported in the media.

It does seem clear that there is a general desire for a smaller core of working royals, but it isn't as if William's cousins aren't called in to help on occasion - Zara & Mike, Peter, Beatrice & Eugenie all turned out to support William at last spring's Garden Party that he hosted. It won't surprise me if we see at least a couple of them in attendance again this year if William & Catherine host one.

And while Tim isn't a working royal he's certainly showing up in support of Anne at more & more events in the current reign. We'll have to see how things play out in coming years, though I'm really not sure I think anything is all that clear. For all we know, Beatrice & Eugenie may like things the way they are while their own children are young. Who knows what will happen in the next 10-15 years. We could be talking about Beatrice & Eugenie as working royals once their own children are older.