Questions about British Styles and Titles 2: Sep 2022 - Aug 2023

[Mbruno]

I don’t think the issue will be Princess Charlotte, but maybe George if he has a first born daughter.

George's daughter will be a princess whether she is born in Charles' or William's reign since she will be either a child of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales (if Charles is King), or a grandchild in paternal line of the King (if William is the monarch). So gender discrimination will not be an issue for her. Basically, gender inequality in the titles of the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales was already eliminated by Queen Elizabeth II's 2012 LPs.

On the other hand, under the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, George's hypothetical firstborn daughter would be the heir(ess) apparent to the Crown in George's reign, and there are precedents for children of an heiress to be created princes/princesses by separate LPs (e.g. Princess Elizabeth's children) without any change to the general 1917 rules. In any case, that issue would only come up again when George's daughter had children and Charlotte would probably have children of her own long before that.

Durham was not discussing LPs, though, but the 1999 announcement regarding the Wessex children, which was associated by the royal spokeswoman with "the likely future circumstances of their children".

https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/special_report/1999/06/99/royal_wedding/373120.stm

In a modernising touch, the couple's children will not be given the style His or Her Royal Highness, "but would have courtesy titles as sons or daughters of an earl".

The decision reflects "the clear personal wish of Prince Edward and Miss Rhys-Jones as being appropriate to the likely future circumstances of their children," said a spokeswoman before Saturday's wedding.​

Of course this form of sexism is standard in Europe, in 2022 as well as 1917, and on every other continent also, but being the standard self-evidently does not reduce the sexism.




It applies to them, or rather to their father, because if they descended from the Queen maternally instead of paternally no one would be discussing the possibility of their becoming Prince and Princess in the next reign. It would be taken for granted that they would remain Master and Miss, like Peter and Zara Phillips.

It does not apply to them in the sense that they will not be deprived of any right or title under the 1917 rules on account of the gender of their royal-born parent, which is what we are discussing in this thread. I believe that is self-evident.

On the "sexism" issue, I am just saying that we should not judge historical events or rules by modern standards only and in a perspective that ignores the contemporary circumstances. I am not denying that the rules were sexist at the time as they are today, but rather simply saying that it would be completely unrealistic to expect them to be different in 1917.

I understand that there may be different reactions in the UK versus the US but you also have to factor in the Realm / Commonwealth. While it is a foregone conclusion that when The Queen passes, that nations that are currently part of the realm will choose to no longer have the British monarch be its head of state, presumably all involved want that transition to take place with little or no rancor, and I think that titles and styling of the Sussex children could become a cause of rancor.

Your post raises several issues:

1. The Commonwealth realms do not have the "British monarch" as Head of State. The Canadian monarch is the Queen of Canada, who is a different legal office from the office of the Queen of the United Kingdom; the two offices only happen to be occupied by the same physical person. That is important to stress, not only for Canada, but for all the realms, to clarify their constitutional status vis-a-vis the United Kingdom (they are now fully independent countries and in no way subordinate to the United Kingdom).

2. It is not a foregone conclusion that the realms will choose to withdraw from the shared monarchy when the Queen dies. That may happen in some of the Caribbean realms, which are the realms that I think you had in mind, but is very unlikely to happen in Canada, or even in New Zealand. There might be a republic in Australia, but it is not a foregone conclusion either that it will happen in a near future.

3. I think you are overestimating Meghan's importance when you say that stripping her children of royal titles would become a cause of "rancor" between the UK and the realms. Again, I assume you are referring here to the Caribbean realms that have a majority non-white population. If there is "rancor" in those realms directed at the UK, it has much deeper roots going back to the Atlantic slave trade and Meghan's children's titles will be a minor issue comparatively speaking, even though I agree that Meghan will inevitably frame it as an example of racial discrimination and some people, not only in the Caribbean realms, but also in the UK and the US , will buy her version of the story. In any case, just like Barbados recently and others like Trinidad and Tobago or Guyana before that, I don't see the Caribbean realms leaving the Commonwealth or breaking up relations with the UK if they become republics, and I doubt Meghan's situation will change that.

 

[FigTree]

I don’t for moment think the Sussex children will get titles. The Sussexes declared they wouldn’t so aren’t going to take a title now and there is absolutely no appetite for it anywhere. The choice really comes down to the ‘Other grandchildren’ of the monarch having no title at all or being lords and lady’s. It worked nicely with Princess Margaret’s children. And they seem to have been leading good lives. A title like Prince with nothing to go with it is really an albatross.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

It does not apply to them in the sense that they will not be deprived of any right or title under the 1917 rules on account of the gender of their royal-born parent, which is what we are discussing in this thread. I believe that is self-evident.

It wasn't evident to me as your comment quoted FigTree's comment, which in turn quoted my comment about the fact that their rights (not deprivation of rights) under the 1917 rules were on account of the gender of their royal-born parent.

On the "sexism" issue, I am just saying that we should not judge historical events or rules by modern standards only and in a perspective that ignores the contemporary circumstances. I am not denying that the rules were sexist at the time as they are today, but rather simply saying that it would be completely unrealistic to expect them to be different in 1917.

I fully agree with your essential points about not judging historical events by modern circumstances (etc.), and I haven't criticized King George V for writing the letters patent as he did.

The one detail I am not sure about is whether, as you say, "it would be completely unrealistic to expect them to be different in 1917". Viewing press reports and other documents from 1917, it seems the palace initially claimed - incorrectly - that all grandchildren would continue to be Princes and Princesses although only the male-line grandchildren would be HRHs, and the incorrect information was reported without comment by the British press, so it apparently wasn't unthinkable for Britons of 1917. See for instance the Spectator's archived article:

The title "Royal Highness" will be confined to the children of the Sovereign and the children of the Sovereign's sons ; and the titles of "Prince" and "Princess" will be confined to the children and grandchildren of the Sovereign. Thus the children of the Prince of Wales and of all his brothers will be Royal Highnesses, but the children of Princess Mary will not, though they will be Princes and Princesses. But (unless the succession is interrupted), whereas the grandchildren of the Prince of Wales will be Royal Highnesses, the grandchildren of his brothers will not.

 

[FigTree]

It wasn't evident to me as your comment quoted FigTree's comment, which in turn quoted my comment about the fact that their rights (not deprivation of rights) under the 1917 rules were on account of the gender of their royal-born parent.




I fully agree with your essential points about not judging historical events by modern circumstances (etc.), and I haven't criticized King George V for writing the letters patent as he did.

The one detail I am not sure about is whether, as you say, "it would be completely unrealistic to expect them to be different in 1917". Viewing press reports and other documents from 1917, it seems the palace initially claimed - incorrectly - that all grandchildren would continue to be Princes and Princesses although only the male-line grandchildren would be HRHs, and the incorrect information was reported without comment by the British press, so it apparently wasn't unthinkable for Britons of 1917. See for instance the Spectator's archived article:

That is so fascinating because it literally referred to Prince Charles etc being without being titles unless the succession is interrupted…high it was.

People are perfectly able in 1917 to have modern views. But it’s all beside the point. They should be updated to reflect now. And really they won’t apply for many years anyway by which time Charles may be long gone. I mean it will only matter if and when Charlotte and Louis have kids.

 

[Somebody]

I don’t for moment think the Sussex children will get titles. The Sussexes declared they wouldn’t so aren’t going to take a title now and there is absolutely no appetite for it anywhere. The choice really comes down to the ‘Other grandchildren’ of the monarch having no title at all or being lords and lady’s. It worked nicely with Princess Margaret’s children. And they seem to have been leading good lives. A title like Prince with nothing to go with it is really an albatross.

They will the second the queen dies.

Harry and Meghan clearly didn't want their son to be known as Earl Dumbarton but have themselves stated that they instead wanted their children to be princes and princesses from birth. So, so far I see little reason why they would decline using prince and princess titles for their children if they had the option. That Edward and Sophie did so, doesn't mean that they will too.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I don’t for moment think the Sussex children will get titles. The Sussexes declared they wouldn’t so aren’t going to take a title now and there is absolutely no appetite for it anywhere. The choice really comes down to the ‘Other grandchildren’ of the monarch having no title at all or being lords and lady’s. It worked nicely with Princess Margaret’s children. And they seem to have been leading good lives. A title like Prince with nothing to go with it is really an albatross.

But they will have titles as Archie is the heir male, lawfully begotten, to the Duke of Sussex, Earl of Dumbarton, Baron Kilkeel. As children to a Duke they can be addressed as Lord and Lady.

This apart from any eventual future use of their rightful style and title HRH Prince (Princess) of the United Kingdom of Great-Britain and Northern Ireland (which seems very unlikely to me, they will go the James and Louise scenario).

 

[Mbruno]

They will the second the queen dies.

Harry and Meghan clearly didn't want their son to be known as Earl Dumbarton but have themselves stated that they instead wanted their children to be princes and princesses from birth. So, so far I see little reason why they would decline using prince and princess titles for their children if they had the option. That Edward and Sophie did so, doesn't mean that they will too.

This comment is not directed at you, Somebody, but, broadly speaking, I fail to understand why it seems to be so important to some people that two specific individuals, Archie and Lilibet, and only those two individuals, lose HRH status after that style having been given to them, which is what would happen if LPs were issued in Charles' reign and did not apply also to the Gloucesters, the Kents, the York girls, and Edward and Sophie's children. Is it because Archie and Lilibet are American and are being raised in the US? Or because they are Meghan's children? Honestly that only fuels into Meghan's narrative that she is being singled out for discrimination by the Family.

I say, keep the existing rules until William has grandchildren and adopt the new rules for those born afterward (or "afterwards" in British usage). For Lilibet and Archie, give them the option of being voluntarily styled as children of a Duke following James and Louise's precedent. I am not entirely sure Harry and Meghan would insist on Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet of Sussex although it might look like that from their interviews. In fact, Meghan would even score PR points as "a People's Princess", at least in the US, if her children remained legally HRHs and she declined the use of the title on their behalf while they are minors.

 

[Denville]

They will the second the queen dies.

Harry and Meghan clearly didn't want their son to be known as Earl Dumbarton but have themselves stated that they instead wanted their children to be princes and princesses from birth. So, so far I see little reason why they would decline using prince and princess titles for their children if they had the option. That Edward and Sophie did so, doesn't mean that they will too.

I think they have made it very clear that they want the children to have HRH - and once Charles becomes king, they will have it unless the queen issues new LP before she goes. which she wont do. And IMO if Charles were to issue LPs when he becomes king, taking away the childrens HRH there would be a fuss

 

[FigTree]

I think they have made it very clear that they want the children to have HRH - and once Charles becomes king, they will have it unless the queen issues new LP before she goes. which she wont do. And IMO if Charles were to issue LPs when he becomes king, taking away the childrens HRH there would be a fuss

From who? Harry and Meghan. That would mean them.look more self obsessed than they already do and they said in Oprwh it was going to be changed anyway. Like I said being a Prince with nothing else is pretty pathetic existence really. Like am exciled Romanov or Italian Prince. Even Bea and Eug now look a bit dated with the titles.

Because the public doesn't have an appetite for it. And if is different for Louise and Jes amd different for any future grandchildren of William than people will be a bit annoyed they get special treatment.

 

[Denville]

From who? Harry and Meghan. That would mean them.look more self obsessed than they already do and they said in Oprwh it was going to be changed anyway. Like I said being a Prince with nothing else is pretty pathetic existence really. Like am exciled Romanov or Italian Prince. Even Bea and Eug now look a bit dated with the titles.

Because the public doesn't have an appetite for it. And if is different for Louise and Jes amd different for any future grandchildren of William than people will be a bit annoyed they get special treatment.

obvioiusly from Harry and Meghan. There would be insinuations of racism just as there were during the Oprah interview.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

They will the second the queen dies.

Harry and Meghan clearly didn't want their son to be known as Earl Dumbarton but have themselves stated that they instead wanted their children to be princes and princesses from birth. So, so far I see little reason why they would decline using prince and princess titles for their children if they had the option. That Edward and Sophie did so, doesn't mean that they will too.

What if King Charles, following Durham's suggestion, were to issue a Wessex-style statement upon his accession that his younger son's children "will continue to be known by" non royal titles, even if they would ostensibly be HRH Prince and Princess under the 1917 letters patent?

It's worth noting that if the Duke and Duchess of Sussex made the choice to begin referring to their children as HRH Prince Archie and HRH Princess Lili at this very moment, then realistically speaking, there is nothing that the Queen could do about it. But they have not taken that step, so it appears that, whatever the reason may be, they are still listening to the will of the monarch.

This comment is not directed at you, Somebody, but, broadly speaking, I fail to understand why it seems to be so important to some people that two specific individuals, Archie and Lilibet, and only those two individuals, lose HRH status after that style having been given to them, which is what would happen if LPs were issued in Charles' reign and did not apply also to the Gloucesters, the Kents, the York girls, and Edward and Sophie's children. Is it because Archie and Lilibet are American and are being raised in the US? Or because they are Meghan's children? Honestly that only fuels into Meghan's narrative that she is being singled out for discrimination by the Family.

I say, keep the existing rules until William has grandchildren and adopt the new rules for those born afterward (or "afterwards" in British usage).

I know that you have applauded the monarchies of Netherlands, Belgium and Sweden for the steps they have taken to restrict royal styles to a smaller circle of people. Presumably, there were reasons why these were important reforms in your eyes. So, and I say this with respect, I am curious about why you "fail to understand why it seems to be so important" when the issue is applied to the British royal family.

 

[Kataryn]

I just want to add in my opinion here. What we discuss is how the relation of a person to the monarch should be shown in the title this person has. If we are against gender inequality, we have to state that the gender of a person doesn't count. Not in their relation or in their right to the throne.

Thus in my opinion it should be generelly HRHs for the children and grandchildren of the king plus an inheritable title, even if it is just Baron and Baroness (or something else "invented" for a monarch's descendants). I'd go with Baron and Baroness because it's the same title politicians can get for their service, but with the "Royal" Baron-class it's inheritable, so all descendants of a monarch are "scions of the Royal Barons of ...." You either believe in the blood Royal or not. If you have a society like the UK where a very old form of nobility and aristocrazy still exists, you should see that descendants of the "fount of all honours" should have a fixed place in that.



An example: Let's start with William's children. prince george would be known by his father's second title while Charlotte and Louis have their own Baronial titles behind the "Prince/ess of Cambridge). So Charlotte would be HRH princess Charlotte of Cambridge, Baroness XY. Her firstborn child would be Mr./Miss Montbatten-Windsor as her other children (if they don't decide to use the father's surname) and all children become HRH Prince/Princess of the UK when William becomes king as grandchildren of the king. Her eldest child after Princess Charlotte's death becomes HRH Prince(ss) X of the Uk, Baron(ess) XY. After that, all children who descent from king William via Princess Charlotte are "scions of the Royal Barons of XY" with prince/ss X's firstborn as the Head of this minor branch of the Mountbatten-Windsors.

So that each branch follows the same rules like they exist for the throne (and should exist for the peerage) and you can still see that the firstborn child has a title to show here is the Nr. One of that branch when it comes to the succession of the throne (though of course there are all other descendants of Prince George before this person) but you still see the descent from a line of kings and queens (Elizabeth, Victoria) in their title or their relation to the Head of that branch of the MWs. So while Archie's branch will inherit the "Duke of Sussex"-title, Lilibeth could become the founder of her own branch of Royal descendants under the MW-dynasty.


IMHO there is no need to reduce a Royal dynasty to plain Mr./Miss when there is such a large peerage in the country which exists because the ruling ancestors of the MW-dynasty made them so. But open in up to genderequality as the peerage still lives with the titles that can be inherited via the female line as well.

 

[FigTree]

obvioiusly from Harry and Meghan. There would be insinuations of racism just as there were during the Oprah interview.

No will care thay they say and they run a dangerous game of the Sussexes who cry wolf.

 

[FigTree]

I just want to add in my opinion here. What we discuss is how the relation of a person to the monarch should be shown in the title this person has. If we are against gender inequality, we have to state that the gender of a person doesn't count. Not in their relation or in their right to the throne.

Thus in my opinion it should be generelly HRHs for the children and grandchildren of the king plus an inheritable title, even if it is just Baron and Baroness (or something else "invented" for a monarch's descendants). I'd go with Baron and Baroness because it's the same title politicians can get for their service, but with the "Royal" Baron-class it's inheritable, so all descendants of a monarch are "scions of the Royal Barons of ...." You either believe in the blood Royal or not. If you have a society like the UK where a very old form of nobility and aristocrazy still exists, you should see that descendants of the "fount of all honours" should have a fixed place in that.



An example: Let's start with William's children. prince george would be known by his father's second title while Charlotte and Louis have their own Baronial titles behind the "Prince/ess of Cambridge). So Charlotte would be HRH princess Charlotte of Cambridge, Baroness XY. Her firstborn child would be Mr./Miss Montbatten-Windsor as her other children (if they don't decide to use the father's surname) and all children become HRH Prince/Princess of the UK when William becomes king as grandchildren of the king. Her eldest child after Princess Charlotte's death becomes HRH Prince(ss) X of the Uk, Baron(ess) XY. After that, all children who descent from king William via Princess Charlotte are "scions of the Royal Barons of XY" with prince/ss X's firstborn as the Head of this minor branch of the Mountbatten-Windsors.

So that each branch follows the same rules like they exist for the throne (and should exist for the peerage) and you can still see that the firstborn child has a title to show here is the Nr. One of that branch when it comes to the succession of the throne (though of course there are all other descendants of Prince George before this person) but you still see the descent from a line of kings and queens (Elizabeth, Victoria) in their title or their relation to the Head of that branch of the MWs. So while Archie's branch will inherit the "Duke of Sussex"-title, Lilibeth could become the founder of her own branch of Royal descendants under the MW-dynasty.


IMHO there is no need to reduce a Royal dynasty to plain Mr./Miss when there is such a large peerage in the country which exists because the ruling ancestors of the MW-dynasty made them so. But open in up to genderequality as the peerage still lives with the titles that can be inherited via the female line as well.

With all due respect. No. That is not the way we are heading at all. And I am not in favour if royals passing down titles. They should have their own one or many for life and that is it. They end up with a Dukedom and in a couple of generations they are a middle class doctor, teacher, accountant, lawyer. Nonsense.

 

[Denville]

With all due respect. No. That is not the way we are heading at all. And I am not in favour if royals passing down titles. They should have their own one or many for life and that is it. They end up with a Dukedom and in a couple of generations they are a middle class doctor, teacher, accountant, lawyer. Nonsense.

what is wrong wiht that? Just because you have a title, it does not mean that you cannot engage in a job or career.

 

[Somebody]

This comment is not directed at you, Somebody, but, broadly speaking, I fail to understand why it seems to be so important to some people that two specific individuals, Archie and Lilibet, and only those two individuals, lose HRH status after that style having been given to them, which is what would happen if LPs were issued in Charles' reign and did not apply also to the Gloucesters, the Kents, the York girls, and Edward and Sophie's children. Is it because Archie and Lilibet are American and are being raised in the US? Or because they are Meghan's children? Honestly that only fuels into Meghan's narrative that she is being singled out for discrimination by the Family.

(Not taking it personally but let me respond) To me it has a lot to do with Louise and James. In practice a change has already been made. So, to return to the original practice while a decision has already been made to make changes (among other reasons because of the change in the line of succession that no longer gives brothers precedence over sisters) seems illogical. One of my concerns is that the only reason to not make the change now would be because they are the children of Harry and Meghan. I don't think they would have doubted otherwise, so, in that case, I don't think they should budge because of the negative press that might be expected.

The alternative of course would be for Louise and James to start using their HRH as well - that would also be a 'consistent' option. The inconsistency really bugs me.

This is why the previously made suggestion to go the 'Louise and James' route for Harry & Meghan's children might be an alternative (with the assurance that it will be applied in the same manner - so truly only reconsidering the use when they are adults) - although imho the best way would be to solve it now so no HRH has to be removed but the queen doesn't seem intend to do so. If considered helpful, an additional mention of Louise and James can be made.

I say, keep the existing rules until William has grandchildren and adopt the new rules for those born afterward (or "afterwards" in British usage). For Lilibet and Archie, give them the option of being voluntarily styled as children of a Duke following James and Louise's precedent. I am not entirely sure Harry and Meghan would insist on Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet of Sussex although it might look like that from their interviews. In fact, Meghan would even score PR points as "a People's Princess", at least in the US, if her children remained legally HRHs and she declined the use of the title on their behalf while they are minors.

However, wouldn't the same go for William's grandchildren: why should they be the first to be 'punished' (as it seems that is how it is seen by many)? Previous generations DID receive these titles, so what is going to change in the future that hasn't changed yet? It clearly wasn't about no longer being expected to conduct activities as a member of the royal family (which was the case until the queen's cousins generation (at least for one out of each family). So, why wait more generations...

From that perspective removing it starting with the generation of the queen's grandchildren would also make sense - especially since the queen herself had only a sister, so currently among all the 'grandchildren' of monarchs - younger than 75 - B&E are the only grandchild HRHs that are not also children of a heir; all others are either not titled/styled or use a style (Lord/Lady) based on their father's title or a subsidiary title.

Of course, if there is NO intention at all to reduce the HRH because everyone is perfectly happy with the current arrangements/LPs that is fine too but in that case, there is no need to suggest that something is to be changed for William's grandchildren either and Louis' children should be HRH just like the children of princes (in a similar position) before him...

 

[Somebody]

What if King Charles, following Durham's suggestion, were to issue a Wessex-style statement upon his accession that his younger son's children "will continue to be known by" non royal titles, even if they would ostensibly be HRH Prince and Princess under the 1917 letters patent?

That could indeed be an alternative. However, that requires trust by the BRF that Harry and Meghan will stick to their part of the deal. And I am not sure that sufficient trust exists. Nonetheless, it might be something they are looking into as a compromise.

It's worth noting that if the Duke and Duchess of Sussex made the choice to begin referring to their children as HRH Prince Archie and HRH Princess Lili at this very moment, then realistically speaking, there is nothing that the Queen could do about it. But they have not taken that step, so it appears that, whatever the reason may be, they are still listening to the will of the monarch.

I am not sure I fully understand what you mean. If they would start calling their children HRH prince(ss) NOW they would do so while factually they are not prince and princess and I assume the palace would make that known quite clearly and would never refer to them in that way themselves. It would be the same like anybody else starting to call themselves a royal highness and expecting to be called a prince and princess. They aren't... So, I am not sure that this is a case of listening to the will of the monarch. They are not claiming fantasy titles...

 

[Mbruno]

What if King Charles, following Durham's suggestion, were to issue a Wessex-style statement upon his accession that his younger son's children "will continue to be known by" non royal titles, even if they would ostensibly be HRH Prince and Princess under the 1917 letters patent?

It's worth noting that if the Duke and Duchess of Sussex made the choice to begin referring to their children as HRH Prince Archie and HRH Princess Lili at this very moment, then realistically speaking, there is nothing that the Queen could do about it. But they have not taken that step, so it appears that, whatever the reason may be, they are still listening to the will of the monarch.




I know that you have applauded the monarchies of Netherlands, Belgium and Sweden for the steps they have taken to restrict royal styles to a smaller circle of people. Presumably, there were reasons why these were important reforms in your eyes. So, and I say this with respect, I am curious about why you "fail to understand why it seems to be so important" when the issue is applied to the British royal family.

I support the general concept of restricting HRH to a smaller circle of people. The changes in the Netherlands and Belgium did not affect any living persons. Princess Margriet's chidren are still Princes of Orange-Nassau (HHs) and Prince Friso's and Prince Constantijn's children were already born with titles of nobility (count/countess) only and no royal titles. Likewise, no living persons were affected in Belgium: Princess Astrid's and Prince Laurent's children kept their HRHs and the first persons to whom the new rules applied were Prince Amedeo's children. The changes did affect living persons in Sweden (CP's and Madeleine's children), but, at least , they were applied equally to both CP's and Madeleine's offspring (no discrimination) and the kids kept a courtesy prefix title of "Prince/Princess" and their royal duchies and Seraphim orders anyway, and even kept the right to use a differenced royal coat of arms. So I think the Swedish case is a slightly different situation.

What I am saying is just that I don't think it is fair to strip the Kents, the Gloucesters, and the York girls of the HRH after they have held it for their entire lives. And, if the latter keep their titles, and only Archie and Lilibet lose them, after gaining them the moment Charles becomes King, it will look very bad and Meghan will have a strong case to plead, especially with the American public.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

In the end all will fall in a nice fold:

HM The King
HM Queen Camilla

HRH The Duke of Cornwall
HRH The Duchess of Cornwall
HRH Prince George of Cornwall
HRH Princess Charlotte of Cornwall
HRH Prince Louis of Cornwall

HRH The Duke of Sussex
HRH The Duchess of Sussex
Lord Archie Mountbatten-Windsor, Earl of Dumbarton (formally HRH Prince Archie of Sussex)
Lady Lillibet Mountbatten-Windsor (formally HRH Princess Lillibet of Sussex)

HRH The Princess Royal
Vice Admiral Timothy Laurence
HRH The Duke of York
HRH The Duke of Edinburgh
HRH The Duchess of Edinburgh

 

[Somebody]

With all due respect. No. That is not the way we are heading at all. And I am not in favour if royals passing down titles. They should have their own one or many for life and that is it. They end up with a Dukedom and in a couple of generations they are a middle class doctor, teacher, accountant, lawyer. Nonsense.

Given that the UK has quite a few peers. I am not to worried about adding one or two more each generation. I would, however, limit it to the children of the monarch and not to all grandchildren as that would inconsistent with previous practice (for example prince Michael of Kent never received a peerage - his elder brother took over their father's).

For example, had this principle been applied from the queen's generation on wards we would have:
- A peerage for princess Margaret, which was passed on to her son - as happened in practice with the Earl of Snowdon peerage - but it was given to her husband instead.
- A peerage for princess Anne, which would be passed on to her son, Peter, upon her death. They refused a title, so it didn't happen but we would have only one more peer.
- A peerage for prince Andrew, which happened in real life; if it could be passed down in female line, Beatrice would be the next Duchess of York.
- A peerage for prince Edward, which happened in real life and will be passed on to his son (if it would not be male-preference, it would have gone to Louise).
- A peerage for prince Harry, which happened in real life and will be passed on to his son
- A peerage for princess Charlotte; we don't know what is to happen - but if she would be given a peerage in her own right, she would be the only 'additional' one in her generation.
- A peerage for prince Louis; we don't know what is to happen - but if tradition is followed he would be given a dukedom like his uncle and great-uncles.

 

[Somebody]

In the end all will fall in a nice fold:

HM The King
HM Queen Camilla

HRH The Duke of Cornwall
HRH The Duchess of Cornwall
HRH Prince George of Cornwall
HRH Princess Charlotte of Cornwall
HRH Prince Louis of Cornwall

HRH The Duke of Sussex
HRH The Duchess of Sussex
Lord Archie Mountbatten-Windsor, Earl of Dumbarton (formally HRH Prince Archie of Sussex)
Lady Lillibet Mountbatten-Windsor (formally HRH Princess Lillibet of Sussex)

HRH The Princess Royal
Vice Admiral Timothy Laurence
HRH The Duke of York
HRH The Duke of Edinburgh
HRH The Duchess of Edinburgh

William's family will be 'of Cornwall and Cambridge' until they become 'of Wales'.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I am not sure I fully understand what you mean. If they would start calling their children HRH prince(ss) NOW they would do so while factually they are not prince and princess and I assume the palace would make that known quite clearly and would never refer to them in that way themselves. It would be the same like anybody else starting to call themselves a royal highness and expecting to be called a prince and princess. They aren't... So, I am not sure that this is a case of listening to the will of the monarch. They are not claiming fantasy titles...

Of course, in the hypothetical event, the palace would be free to issue a statement that "factually they are not Prince and Princess". All I meant is that such a statement, or any other move by the palace which is within the realm of possibility, could not prevent them (or anybody else, since you mention it) from calling their children Prince and Princess if they were truly determined on it. In the UK and the US, claiming fantasy titles is not a crime. Pretenders and their families who have been stripped of their titles do it all the time. The palace can express disapproval, but it cannot sentence anybody to prison for using a fantasy title.

 

[Denville]

True, but if the RF were to express disapproval of their claiming titles that did not exist, there would be more tension between them and hte RF

 

[Somebody]

Of course, in the hypothetical event, the palace would be free to issue a statement that "factually they are not Prince and Princess". All I meant is that such a statement, or any other move by the palace which is within the realm of possibility, could not prevent them (or anybody else, since you mention it) from calling their children Prince and Princess if they were truly determined on it. In the UK and the US, claiming fantasy titles is not a crime. Pretenders and their families who have been stripped of their titles do it all the time. The palace can express disapproval, but it cannot sentence anybody to prison for using a fantasy title.

I agree. Although for them to start using fantasy titles for their children might lead to others calling their real titles of duke and duchess of Sussex into question, so it would be a rather bad move to start using made up titles for their children - given the importance they seem to adhere to their ducal titles. By doing so they would be hurting themselves the most.

It might even push the queen over the edge in issuing LPs that ensure they wouldn't get these titles after her death either.

 

[Mbruno]

Given that the UK has quite a few peers. I am not to worried about adding one or two more each generation. I would, however, limit it to the children of the monarch and not to all grandchildren as that would inconsistent with previous practice (for example prince Michael of Kent never received a peerage - his elder brother took over their father's).

Curiously, I was thinking about that issue yesterday, but didn't comment on it because it was not mentioned in the discussion.

In the past three reigns (including the current one), 3 new dukedoms with available successors were created for members of the BRF: Gloucester, Kent, and Sussex. If Prince Edward is created Duke of Edinburgh when Charles is King, that number will be added up to four. Now, according to Wikipedia, there were only 24 non-royal dukes in the UK as of 2021. So 4 new non-royal dukedoms in the course of the next two generations is actually a 16.67 % increase in the number of dukedoms in the kingdom, which is not neglible at all.

The royal (or former royal) earldoms (currently only Snowdon and Wessex, not counting the subsidiary titles) have indeed a neglible effect as the UK has 191 earls (again, not counting subsidiary titles, which are not included in the official Roll of the Peerage).

If we are talking reforms here, having life peerages for royal children (as in Sweden or Spain), or getting rid of royal peerages altogether, may be sensible moves to avoid an inflation of dukedoms in particular over time.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

William's family will be 'of Cornwall and Cambridge' until they become 'of Wales'.

But Charles and Camilla do not use Cornwall, Rothesay and Edinburgh together. They just use the most senior one (in Scotland that is Rothesay).

 

[FigTree]

what is wrong wiht that? Just because you have a title, it does not mean that you cannot engage in a job or career.

I just think all these heritary peerages are something that shouldn't be in the royal family. They are Dukedoms without land and point and historical lineage. One day the sons of the Duke of Kent amd Gloucester will take over the titles. But why? They are extended members of the family and have an ordinary life. The Dukedom is useless and apparently it costs a lot of money to have a Dukedom aswell...someone was talking about this on TV now it looks like Edward won't be the Duke of Edinburgh and then in turn burden James. Charles just said no apparently

The lesser of title of Earl seems do do very well. As it did with Margaret's children.

Nobody wants the Russian coirt running around amd everyone had a title. We have never really had to deal with this before because Victoria's sons weren't an issue because George V, who didn't have any surviving brothers, did everyone a favour. Time they did it again.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I just think all these heritary peerages are something that shouldn't be in the royal family. They are Dukedoms without land and point and historical lineage. One day the sons of the Duke of Kent amd Gloucester will take over the titles. But why? They are extended members of the family and have an ordinary life. The Dukedom is useless and apparently it costs a lot of money to have a Dukedom aswell...someone was talking about this on TV now it looks like Edward won't be the Duke of Edinburgh and then in turn burden James. Charles just said no apparently

The lesser of title of Earl seems do do very well. As it did with Margaret's children.

Nobody wants the Russian coirt running around amd everyone had a title. We have never really had to deal with this before because Victoria's sons weren't an issue because George V, who didn't have any surviving brothers, did everyone a favour. Time they did it again.

But also hereditary peers often are poor in cash not seldom with an ancestral house, studded with artworks, which is often a burden. Already in Edwardian time peers sought rich American heiresses to marry with and to avoid bankruptcy.

 

[FigTree]

But also hereditary peers often are poor in cash not seldom with an ancestral house, studded with artworks, which is often a burden. Already in Edwardian time peers sought rich American heiresses to marry with.

Yes...and? Most houses that can are open to the public and they do work for their money. Duchess of Devonshire goes to every wedding to greet the bride. But the royals don't have land or a house. Basically nothing. I mean they are famous for life anyway of you are the grandchild of a monarch. We don't need loads of basically redundant titles and then loads of 7th generation Dukes running g around. The royal game have never really been classically upper class. They've always postponed themselves as more middle class, albeit upper. You know more in contact with the people.

 

[Somebody]

Curiously, I was thinking about that issue yesterday, but didn't comment on it because it was not mentioned in the discussion.

In the past three reigns (including the current one), 3 new dukedoms with available successors were created for members of the BRF: Gloucester, Kent, and Sussex. If Prince Edward is created Duke of Edinburgh when Charles is King, that number will be added up to four. Now, according to Wikipedia, there were only 24 non-royal dukes in the UK as of 2021. So 4 new non-royal dukedoms in the course of the next two generations is actually a 16.67 % increase in the number of dukedoms in the kingdom, which is not neglible at all.

The royal (or former royal) earldoms (currently only Snowdon and Wessex, not counting the subsidiary titles) have indeed a neglible effect as the UK has 191 earls (again, not counting subsidiary titles, which are not included in the official Roll of the Peerage).

If we are talking reforms here, having life peerages for royal children (as in Sweden or Spain), or getting rid of royal peerages altogether, may be sensible moves to avoid an inflation of dukedoms in particular over time.

Let's look at the development of dukedoms (in the UK, not necessarily UK-dukedoms - also includes English, Scottish and Irish) - including only those that are still 'active' (several others no longer exist but were created):

1398: Rothesay (royal)

1460: Cornwall (royal - with 'breaks')
1483: Norfolk

(3 in total)

1643: Hamilton
1643: Brandon
1660: Somerset
1663: Buccleuch (royal: illegitimate son)
1675: Grafton (royal: illegitimate son)
1675: Richmond (royal: illegitimate son)
1675: Lennox (royal: illegitimate son)
1682: Beaufort
1684: Queensberry
1684: St Albans (royal: illegitimate son)
1694: Bedford
1694: Devonshire

(+12 = 15; increase of 400%)

1701: Argyll
1702: Marlborough
1703: Atholl
1703: Rutland
1707: Montrose
1707: Roxburghe
1719: Manchester
1766: Leinster
1766: Northumberland

(+9 = 23: increase of 60%)

1814: Wellington
1833: Sutherland
1868: Abercorn
1874: Westminster
1876: Gordon
1889: Fife (royal-related: husband of granddaughter)

(+6 = 29: increase of 26%)

1928: Gloucester (royal: son)
1934: Kent (royal: son)
1947: Edinburgh (royal: husband of daughter)
1986: York (royal: son)

(+4 (of which one will merge with the crown) = 33; increase of 14%)

2011: Cambridge (royal: grandson by heir)
2018: Sussex (royal: grandson by heir)

(so far: +2 (of which one will merge with the crown) = 35; increase of 6%)

So, since 1600 each century in the increase in both absolute and relative number has been lower than the previous century. (Again, the numbers are somewhat flawed as only the current active dukedoms are included but the pattern would be even more clear if we add the ones that are now dormant or no longer exist)

Nonetheless, it might make sense to discontinue the practice of giving dukedoms from the next generation onwards (I would still like to see Edward be granted the title of Duke of Edinburgh as he was promised and according to both his parents' wishes) and move to earldoms instead - if they decide to start giving peerages to both sons and daughters of the monarch. That would be somewhat consistent with the practice of giving earldoms to husbands of princesses - and might be an adjustment that would fit better with the times. In that way their eldest son would still be a Lord, the daughters ladies and other sons 'the Hon.'.

N.B. In the scenario above they could make Louis HRH The Earl of Cambridge (if his father by that point has ascended the throne). There have been previous Earls of Cambridge and it would be a nice way to continue the 'Cambridge' title in the family. And Charlotte could, for example be made 'Countess of Strathearn' (or the other way around of course) - continuing the use of her parents' Scottish title.