Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Countessmeout]

There is no reason to think Edward would ever turn it down. It's the reason he was made an Earl and not a Duke when he wed. When he is made Duke, his current titles naturally become his secondary titles. He is being groomed for it already. The work he and his wife have done with the Duke of Edinburgh awards is evidence.

When Charles is king, he will be HRH Prince Edward, Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Wessex, Viscount Severn. James will be James, Earl of Wessex. Since they currently don't use the prince/SS titles, there is no reason to think when Edward is Duke, his kids will be styled as anything but that of the kids if a Duke. James wife should simply be X, countess of Wessex. And their first son viscount Severn.

 

[Westfield Bakery]

There is no reason to think Edward would ever turn it down. It's the reason he was made an Earl and not a Duke when he wed. When he is made Duke, his current titles naturally become his secondary titles. He is being groomed for it already. The work he and his wife have done with the Duke of Edinburgh awards is evidence.

When Charles is king, he will be HRH Prince Edward, Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Wessex, Viscount Severn. James will be James, Earl of Wessex. Since they currently don't use the prince/SS titles, there is no reason to think when Edward is Duke, his kids will be styled as anything but that of the kids if a Duke. James wife should simply be X, countess of Wessex. And their first son viscount Severn.

When James marries, if his father is the Duke of Edinburgh, he should ask to be styled and remain as Prince James of Edinburgh. His wife would be Princess James of Edinburgh.

 

[Skippyboo]

If his parents wanted him and his sister to use their entitled HRHs, they would have been using them since birth.

 

[Westfield Bakery]

The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester (they stopped being Prince and Princess Richard when he became the Duke and became a peer of the realm and thus an aristocrat rather than a commoner) do quite a lot but they are older and don't get the publicity.

The Duchess of Kent voluntarily retired from royal duties when she took ill some years ago and is now well into her 80s and isn't going to appear anytime soon. She was never even referred to as Princess Edward as by the time she married he was already the Duke of Kent.

The press are only interested in the younger, mainline royals. They don't even give that much coverage to the Duchess of Cornwall or the Princess Royal who do a lot more than the Duchess of Cambridge who gets all the coverage due to her age.

Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie are covered usually to allow the press to let the comments mock them which happens all the time. They aren't working royals either so the only coverage comes from their nights out or holidays.

I do think it is disrespectful to refer to people using their lowest titles rather than their highest ones. Do you call Charles - Baron of Renfrew or Prince of Wales? No so why do it with the others?

In the UK Duke is a higher title than Prince. Prince is a commoner - like Prince Michael while Duke is a peer of the realm - an aristocrat and thus is higher in status.

Yes, sometimes I do call Charles Baron or Renfrew, or Lord of the Isles. I call the women "Princess "male husband name" because that is their legal marriage name. Brigitte is Princess Richard.

 

[RoyalHighness 2002]

Wait so your saying that that His Royal Highness Prince Michael of Kent is lower in status than His Grace the Duke of Norfolk?!

 

[Osipi]

Yes, sometimes I do call Charles Baron or Renfrew, or Lord of the Isles. I call the women "Princess "male husband name" because that is their legal marriage name. Brigitte is Princess Richard.

Actually, its their titles and styles. Not their legal married name as I pointed out with William and Kate filing a lawsuit in Paris. William's legal name (mostly would be used outside of the UK) is William Mountbatten-Windsor as per the LPs issued by the Queen denoting what would be used should a surname need to be used for any of her and Philip's descendants.

Charles chooses to use the style of The Prince of Wales as his primary style. Camilla chooses to be styled as The Duchess of Cornwall. I believe that either Beatrice or Eugenie (forget which one) do not use "Princess" at their place of employment but rather Mountbatten-Windsor.

I agree with Iluvebertie and that the royals should be called by the styles that they, themselves, prefer. To do otherwise actually can be very confusing in posts as it makes people wonder just who you're talking about.

 

[Osipi]

Wait so your saying that that His Royal Highness Prince Michael of Kent is lower in status than His Grace the Duke of Norfolk?!

That is correct. The Duke of Norfolk is an aristocrat and a peer while Prince Michael is a commoner. The HRH is purely a form of address and the Prince appellation just denotes that he is a close descendant of a monarch.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Yes, sometimes I do call Charles Baron or Renfrew, or Lord of the Isles. I call the women "Princess "male husband name" because that is their legal marriage name. Brigitte is Princess Richard.

They have higher titles.

I don't understand why you insist on giving them lower styles rather then higher ones that take precedence over the ones you use.

When Birgitte married she was known officially as Princess Richard as her husband had no higher title for her to use.

When he became the Duke he stopped using Prince Richard and she stopped using Princess Richard as they had higher titles to use that take precedence over the title of mere princes/ess (three of them in fact - Duke, Earl and Baron all of which are more impressive than Prince/Princess in the royal hierarchy).

It is rare to see anything other than the major titles being used because that is the most senior title they posses.

Sometimes Charles uses Duke of Cornwall - when in Cornwall - or Earl of Chester when in Chester. He uses Duke of Rothesay in Scotland. He never uses the other titles at all.

Philip doesn't use Merioneth or Greenwich even when visiting those places but always uses Edinburgh.

Andrew used to use Inverness when in Scotland, and especially in Inverness but now only ever uses York officially.

Same with Edward - only uses Wessex just as the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent only use Gloucester and Kent rather than their other titles (Earls of Ulster and St Andrews or Baron Culloden or Downpatrick respectively).

The only one who uses Princess is Marie-Christine simply because her husband had nothing better to use.

The UK is different to the continental royals and having a title is more prestigious than being a prince/princess. To use the lower title is to show total disrespect for them and to demote them from the peerage to commoner status.

If George V or Elizabeth II or Victoria or George III had believed that being a Prince was the highest title they would never have raised their sons to the peerage but left them as commoners and so as princes.

 

[Iluvbertie]

That is correct. The Duke of Norfolk is an aristocrat and a peer while Prince Michael is a commoner. The HRH is purely a form of address and the Prince appellation just denotes that he is a close descendant of a monarch.

So true.

I do find that many Americans (not all) don't understand the difference between peer and commoners and think that all royals are aristocrats when very few of them actually are.

Currently only Philip, Charles, William, Andrew, Edward, Richard and Edward are actually aristocrats while the rest of them are commoners.

There are three levels of society in the UK:

The monarchn - Elizabeth
The aristocracy - Philip, Charles, William, Andrew, Edward, Richard and Edward
The commoners - most of the BRF fall into this category - Camilla, Kate, Harry, Beatrice, Eugenie, Sophie, Anne, Birgitte, Katherine, Michael, Marie-Christine and Alexandra. Some, as wives of peers, use their husbands highest titles, and rightly so. Camilla, we know, uses the title Charles has held for the longest time not his highest. Everyone else does use their husband's highest title.

Why anyone would want to refer to someone by a title that is a lower status than their highest title I don't know - unless it is to be deliberately obtuse or insulting.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

That commoners vs peers thing is a relict from bygone ages. Since the reforms in the House of Lords, only a handful hereditary peers are left. The rest are commoners suddely made peers purely to fill the House of "Lords". In the whole of Europe people are fellow countrymen, citizens or compatriots. The UK is the only European nation with "subjects" and with "commoners" and "peers" plus even bishops as a special stand. Really... since the House of Lords reforms, it has become a vaudeville: Lord Roy Hattersley, Lord Neil Kinnock, the real Lords are excluded except a symbolic handful. Make an upper house, a Senate, that would be my advice.

 

[LauraS3514]

I believe that either Beatrice or Eugenie (forget which one) do not use "Princess" at their place of employment but rather Mountbatten-Windsor.

On the website of her previous employer Paddle8, Princess Eugenie was referred to as "Eugenie York."

 

[Iluvbertie]

That commoners vs peers thing is a relict from bygone ages. Since the reforms in the House of Lords, only a handful hereditary peers are left. The rest are commoners suddely made peers purely to fill the House of "Lords". In the whole of Europe people are fellow countrymen, citizens or compatriots. The UK is the only European nation with "subjects" and with "commoners" and "peers" plus even bishops as a special stand. Really... since the House of Lords reforms, it has become a vaudeville: Lord Roy Hattersley, Lord Neil Kinnock, the real Lords are excluded except a symbolic handful. Make an upper house, a Senate, that would be my advice.

Just because there are hereditary peers who can't sit in the House of Lords doesn't mean they aren't still aristocrats.

Life peers are a reward for an individual's own actions rather than having some ancestor 200 - 300 years ago do something for the nation or monarch and thus raised to the peerage.

The peerage and the rights on inheritance and how that is done is very much alive and well in the UK. Just look at the way the inheritance of the Duke of Westminster went - son basically got everything and if there are been two sons it still would have gone to the eldest only. It is one of the reasons why the British aristocracy survives so well.

To traditionalists and historians the way Britain works isn't so much a relic of the past but a very real way of connecting the present to the history and traditions of the country - something that most of Europe seems to have lost due to the EU and its determination to make all of Europe the same - language, currency, culture etc all the same.

 

[Westfield Bakery]

They have higher titles.

I don't understand why you insist on giving them lower styles rather then higher ones that take precedence over the ones you use.

When Birgitte married she was known officially as Princess Richard as her husband had no higher title for her to use.

When he became the Duke he stopped using Prince Richard and she stopped using Princess Richard as they had higher titles to use that take precedence over the title of mere princes/ess (three of them in fact - Duke, Earl and Baron all of which are more impressive than Prince/Princess in the royal hierarchy).

It is rare to see anything other than the major titles being used because that is the most senior title they posses.

Sometimes Charles uses Duke of Cornwall - when in Cornwall - or Earl of Chester when in Chester. He uses Duke of Rothesay in Scotland. He never uses the other titles at all.

Philip doesn't use Merioneth or Greenwich even when visiting those places but always uses Edinburgh.

Andrew used to use Inverness when in Scotland, and especially in Inverness but now only ever uses York officially.

Same with Edward - only uses Wessex just as the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent only use Gloucester and Kent rather than their other titles (Earls of Ulster and St Andrews or Baron Culloden or Downpatrick respectively).

The only one who uses Princess is Marie-Christine simply because her husband had nothing better to use.

The UK is different to the continental royals and having a title is more prestigious than being a prince/princess. To use the lower title is to show total disrespect for them and to demote them from the peerage to commoner status.

If George V or Elizabeth II or Victoria or George III had believed that being a Prince was the highest title they would never have raised their sons to the peerage but left them as commoners and so as princes.

It is vital to call them other titles so people can know that they have other titles other than Prince of Wales, Duke of Edinburgh, Duke of York.

 

[hel]

It is vital to call them other titles so people can know that they have other titles other than Prince of Wales, Duke of Edinburgh, Duke of York.

Why?

The entire point of names, or name substitutes such as titles, is so that everyone knows who is being discussed. That's a higher priority, IMO, than publicising all the different titles a given individual might have.

What you're suggesting is like randomly referring to making one's toast out of a loaf of leavened wheat. Why not just use the clear and commonly used word that won't require mental gymnastics or clarification?

 

[Westfield Bakery]

Why?

The entire point of names, or name substitutes such as titles, is so that everyone knows who is being discussed. That's a higher priority, IMO, than publicising all the different titles a given individual might have.

What you're suggesting is like randomly referring to making one's toast out of a loaf of leavened wheat. Why not just use the clear and commonly used word that won't require mental gymnastics or clarification?

Their titles change in different countries of the U.K. Andrew is Duke of York, Earl of Inverness, Baron Killyleagh. Period. They should be known for all of their titles. It makes it interesting and historic. I never call Charles Prince of Wales all the time.

 

[VictoriaB]

It is vital to call them other titles so people can know that they have other titles other than Prince of Wales, Duke of Edinburgh, Duke of York.

It is confusing using secondary titles. It is much more preferable for posters to use the title by which the person is most commonly or properly known then we all know who everyone is referring to.

On the topic of best dressed, although it's off topic, my vote goes to the Prince of Wales.

 

[Westfield Bakery]

It is confusing using secondary titles. It is much more preferable for posters to use the title by which the person is most commonly or properly known then we all know who everyone is referring to.

On the topic of best dressed, although it's off topic, my vote goes to the Prince of Wales.

I like secondary titles. Other than that, the Prince of Wales dresses very well.

Prince Philip dresses well too and Prince Michael.

The Queen, the Duchess of Cambridge and Princess Michael dress well. Sophie, Countess of Wessex is dressing better probably because of Princess Michael and Catherine!!

 

[wbenson]

So when Edward becomes Duke of Edinburgh, the Earldom of Wessex will fall to James automatically?

Nothing about this is really automatic. It's probable that James would be known as Earl of Wessex, but also possible that he or his family (depending on when this happens) would opt to continue using Viscount Severn. The use of courtesy titles by heirs is a social courtesy, not a legal matter, so occasionally someone does it a little differently. (I believe there are actually a few earls with no subsidiary titles, and their heirs apparent traditionally use entirely fictitious titles.)

 

[Osipi]

Their titles change in different countries of the U.K. Andrew is Duke of York, Earl of Inverness, Baron Killyleagh. Period. They should be known for all of their titles. It makes it interesting and historic. I never call Charles Prince of Wales all the time.

Its all fine and dandy to think that way but to be honest, if you were to travel to the UK and actually refer to the Baron Killyleagh in a conversation, you'd get a whole lot of blank stares as people wouldn't know who the heck you were talking about. If talking to Andrew, I think he most likely even would be insulted as he prefers to be addressed as The Duke of York. Its his highest and most prominent title and to use a lesser title is somewhat demeaning to the person as if you don't recognize that they have a higher status.

Its kind of along the lines of people calling a person whatever floats their boat like the media calling The Duchess of Cambridge "Kate Middleton" and Diana, Princess of Wales "Princess Diana" or The Duchess of Cornwall "Camilla Parker-Bowles". Those people in question wouldn't care for that form of address and IIRC, Diana would correct people that called her Princess Diana.

Frankly if someone was to talk to me about the Lord of the Isles, I'd think they were talking about The Lord of the Rings or the Game of Thrones or similar.

 

[Countessmeout]

Technically, when they are in Scotland it is proper to address them by their Scottish title. It's not an insult, it is their peerage in that realm. In practice, it's usually only done with Charles and Camilla. From time to time Wlliam is referred to as Earl if Strathearn when in Scotland.

If they are in Scotland, it's less a matter of insult, and more of confusion. Few people would know Andrews lesser title. Or Williams if not a huge fan.

 

[Osipi]

You're absolutely correct. By using their Scottish titles, they are identifying themselves with where they are and the people that live there. It has a purpose.

For the most part, people know how they like to be addressed. Even though William's nickname could be Billy, he'd kind of look at you funny if you called him that I bet. I'd feel insulted if people insisted on calling me Mrs. Stephen as although that is an appellation that I can legally use being married to my husband, its one I wouldn't like very much at all.

Its all just a matter of semantics. Within the family though, I would bet my last banana that they're very informal and use Christian names and appellations such as Gan-Gan which I find adorable.

 

[Iluvbertie]

It is interesting that for some time after becoming Duke of York he did use the Inverness title in Scotland but doesn't anymore. He is the Duke of York everywhere so calling him Earl of Inverness would mean most people wouldn't have the faintest idea who was being talked about.

Other than Charles and the Duke of Cornwall title most people couldn't name any of the other titles of the British royals and so it makes sense to use the titles with which they are most often associated - simply so that people actually know who is being discussed.

 

[Muhler]

It is interesting that for some time after becoming Duke of York he did use the Inverness title in Scotland but doesn't anymore. He is the Duke of York everywhere so calling him Earl of Inverness would mean most people wouldn't have the faintest idea who was being talked about.

Other than Charles and the Duke of Cornwall title most people couldn't name any of the other titles of the British royals and so it makes sense to use the titles with which they are most often associated - simply so that people actually know who is being discussed.

You are right.
I would personally be confused and I bet I'm not the only one.

By all means use their full title or relevant title as you wish, but you'd have to include a say (Andrew, Duke of York) to avoid lot's of questions asking who it is.
Let's keep it simple, eh?

 

[padams2359]

Every peerage is granted starting with the statement "Will and Pleasure". It is not a scientific formula, or list of check marks gets you there. Fortunately it is a small number who have the ability to morph into who they feel like being at a certain time and place.

 

[Westfield Bakery]

I like subsidiary titles. It's important to know more about their titles and what it means.

It's a shame that the Earl of Inverness (Andrew) doesn't visit Balmoral more. He needs to be more Scottishized.

 

[Curryong]

Why? Because he has a Scottish name? Actually, he was probably named after Prince Philip's Greek born father, prince Andrea.

It's more a question of what people like and don't like, IMO. Sarah York, his ex wife, enjoys the life at Balmoral, especially riding about on ponies with the Queen, and so goes there, invited by the Queen (when Prince Philip's absent). Andrew's probably not that keen on horse riding or sitting in coolish weather watching men in kilts tossing cabers.

 

[Osipi]

Why? From all I've read and seen, Andrew isn't one of the Windsors that revel in the country pursuits other than golf. I think his interests lie more in promoting trade and industry between the UK and other countries and instilling a good business sense in the up and coming young enterpreneurs. I'd be willing to bet my last donut that Andrew, if polled, would be termed more of a globetrotter than a country gentleman.

For the most part though, the royal family does enjoy their times in Scotland and one thing I look forward every year to seeing is the Queen at the Braemar games.

The royal family gravitates to what they most resonate with and enjoy. If we're talking about associating titles with an area, we have to look no further than Princess Beatrice of York who has taken on several patronages of her own in York.

Titles denote societal status for the most part. Although it is part and parcel of a person's identity, they, for the most part, do not define the person.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Why? Because he has a Scottish name? Actually, he was probably named after Prince Philip's Greek born father, prince Andrea.

It's more a question of what people like and don't like, IMO. Sarah York, his ex wife, enjoys the life at Balmoral, especially riding about on ponies with the Queen, and so goes there, invited by the Queen (when Prince Philip's absent). Andrew's probably not that keen on horse riding or sitting in coolish weather watching men in kilts tossing cabers.

True - he was named after his paternal grand-father, Prince Andrew of Greece.

All his names have a direct familial relationship:

Andrew - paternal grandfather
Albert - maternal grandfather
Christian - paternal and maternal ancestor - Christian IX of Denmark (Elizabeth descended from Christian via his daughter Alexandra while Philip is descended from his second son William - called George in Greece)
Edward - his father's cousin's son - HRH Prince Edward, Duke of Kent -who also happens to be his mother's first cousin, along with being the name of his mother's uncle Edward - Edward VIII (Marina, Duchess of Kent was Philip's first cousin as their father's were brothers).

The Andrew name had nothing to do with being the name of the patron saint of Scotland. If the Queen really wanted to do that she would have done it for all four countries somehow - Patrick, David, George and Andrew but only two of those names appear in any of her four sons even though they all have four names:

Charles Philip Arthur George
Andrew Albert Christian Edward
Edward Antony Richard Louis

 

[MaiaMia_53]

The issue of royal titles is very confusing. With the discussion in the thread about possible dukedom for Harry, lots of questions have been raised.

I looked online for more information about the history of British royal dukedoms. Wiki gives a rundown, but it's still quite confusing. 'Extant' means 'still in existence.' With the list of all the dukedoms, it seems to me that some of the extinct ones could be brought back into existence, if so desired by the monarch.

For example: Buckingham, Surrey, Exeter, Warwick, et al.

I was wondering about the title, Duke of Buckingham. Apparently, it hasn't been used since 1687:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dukedoms_in_the_peerages_of_Britain_and_Ireland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_of_Buckingham

Why couldn't that title be renewed, possibly for Harry? Buckingham Palace takes its name from John Sheffield, first Duke of Buckingham and Normandy (1648-1721). The palace was first a house built for Sheffield. In 1762, King George III purchased the Sheffield house for his wife, Queen Charlotte of Mecklenberg-Strelitz (she is said to have Portugese-related African heritage). After Queen Charlotte was given the house by King George III, it became known as The Queen's House. King George IV ordered the house to be converted into a palace during the 1820s.

But I guess since Buckingham is the well known name of the palace, it would never be considered for use as a dukedom again.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Warwick isn't available as a Dukedom as there is an existing Earldom and it isn't done to have two people with effectively the same designation in that way.

The problem with Buckingham is that Buckingham Palace is the home of the monarch so having a Duke with that now would suggest that that Duke would live there.

I would like to see that title kept in future for the husband of a Queen Regnant. If Camilla isn't to be Queen maybe Duchess of Buckingham in her own right as that will be her home would be a good compromise and then keep the Buckingham title specifically for the Consort of the monarch.