No need to give husband’s Earldoms. It’s a tricky one because what move could still be seen as potentially pragmatic. If husbands don’t get titles why should wives. Is that only because of the traditional form of women taking husbands names? You can’t win with it but there is a more manageable way of doing it then now. And like it or lump it it should start with the Sussexes and with the family or not I feel it was always going to be the thing when Charles becomes King.
Questions about British Styles and Titles 2: Sep 2022 - Aug 2023
- Thread starter Marengo
- Start date
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
No need to give husband’s Earldoms. It’s a tricky one because what move could still be seen as potentially pragmatic. If husbands don’t get titles why should wives. Is that only because of the traditional form of women taking husbands names? You can’t win with it but there is a more manageable way of doing it then now. And like it or lump it it should start with the Sussexes and with the family or not I feel it was always going to be the thing when Charles becomes King.
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2017
- Messages
- 11,423
- City
- BC
- Country
- Canada
I wasn't suggesting giving husbands earldoms. I was just explaining that in the past husband's were made earls instead of dukes (and more recently, Edward was too). So, it wouldn't be too far-fetched to start giving both sons and daughters of the monarch (or heir) the title of earl/countess.
JR76
Heir Apparent
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2012
- Messages
- 4,894
- City
- Malmö
- Country
- Sweden
There are no costs involved in being a duke. It's not as if you have to pay a special fee to hold the title.
Apparently there is, whether that is lifestyle or something else I don’t know but when it became apparent Edward wouldn’t be DoE then people were talking about it just being good business sense for the family and for Edward’s descendants themselves because they wouldn’t have the costs associated with it. What they are though I don’t know. Maybe someone else does.
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2017
- Messages
- 11,423
- City
- BC
- Country
- Canada
JR76 is right: there are NO costs related to having the title of duke. However, if you could share the sources of and arguments presented by the 'people' that suggested that it was much cheaper for HRH The Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex and Forfar, Viscount Severn (and their descendants) not to also receive the title 'Duke of Edinburgh' - following his parents' wishes, I'd be interested to read them. Without those, I'm afraid your claim is baseless and I'd suggest you don't believe any of it.
HighGoalHighDreams
Courtier
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2005
- Messages
- 662
- City
- Unspecified
- Country
- United States
It made good "business sense" for the family in the sense that The Royal Family's business is the public perception and goodwill, and this was seen as a positive move in the eyes of the public.
The "costs" associated with it for Edward's descendants are the same. One need only look at the treatment of TRH Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie at the same age as compared to the treatment of Lady Louise and Viscount Severn to see "the cost" associated with holding particular titles. (Other factors that played into this are irrelevant to this thread.) The public perception and treatment of someone holding a hereditary dukedom are simply different to that of someone that is plain Mr. Smith, regardless of money, home, or blood.
But no, there is no automatic expense associated with holding a hereditary dukedom as opposed to holding a different title, a non-heriditary title, or no title. The (massive) financial burden comes from the trappings that typically come with these titles come with the estate, artwork, other holdings, and maintenance of staff associated with inheriting the title. But a hereditary duke who inherited the title itself but no estate, no house, no possessions at all would have no financial burden, only the perception that comes with being a duke and whatever "cost" one perceives from this. Similarly, a person who inherited an ancient familial estate with priceless artwork, thousands of acres, and a staff of one hundred to maintain would have the same enormous financial burden as someone who inherited the same situation as a hereditary duke.
Historically, there was no separation between the title and the trappings that came along with it, and so the title equalled the cost. This is no longer necessarily the case, and one can have either without the other.
ETA:I misread the quoted post as "when it became evident that Edward would not be made a duke upon his marriage." It has not, of course, ever become evident that Edward will not be Duke of Edinburgh.
Well I probably saw it on royalty TV or one of those but it was about a year ago. If you have access search the archives. Like I said I wasn’t really listening and they just said it was business and for James in the future it was a much better decision…money wise.
I thought it had. It was reported everywhere around a year ago. But I wasn’t paying much attention and accepted it unquestioningly. To be honest it makes sense…or make him it but just for life.
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2017
- Messages
- 11,423
- City
- BC
- Country
- Canada
Thanks. That makes much more sense. However, in this case we are not comparing someone who is a 'plain mr. X' but someone (be it Edward, James or their descedants) who is either 'The Earl of Wessex and Forfar' or 'The Duke of Edinburgh'.
There are indeed no expenses that are tied to the title but there might be societal expectation and in some case the upkeep of a house (but that doesn't require a title although in the past that often went together - although even in the past the house didn't come with the title but more prominent people in society that owned such a house were -in one generation or another- often awarded a peerage (of whatever 'level').
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2017
- Messages
- 11,423
- City
- BC
- Country
- Canada
You are making the claim, so you should be able to provide evidence. Otherwise I recommend you accept the reality that you most likely have misunderstood what was said. As HGHD explained, there are NO financial repercussions to James being either the Earl of Wessex (Viscount Severn until his father passes away) or the Duke of Edinburgh (Earl of Wessex until his father passes away).
Seeing as it was people like a Robert Jobson and Ingrid Stewart talking and saying it was an expensive game carrying around a Duke title. I’ll believe them. Expensive in terms of cost of living, probably, but then there is nothing more expensive then the amount of people it takes to run your life for a year.
One good thing for them, unlike the landed gentry, is it doesn’t come with the costs of a monstrosity of a house.
I believe Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester, acquired a modest country estate that includes some 2,500 acres (10 km2) of land that is farmed by the present Duke and a Manor House that is now let out. Presumably, the Duke intended his successors to live in the future as "proper British peers" with a estate to inherit.
The Kents are the ones who are "landless" so to speak now as far as I understand.
Last edited:
They had to sell Cobbins. But only Charles and Anne own their own homes. And Charles not anymore as it has been handed to a trust to manage. Andrew and Edward are just tenants. It won’t be their children’s.
The royals don’t have any land in the way the non royal Dukes have.
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2017
- Messages
- 11,423
- City
- BC
- Country
- Canada
It's all optional... and not a necessity for a duke (nor an earl). People might have certain expectations but you are free to live your life in the way you please independent of your title (especially if you haven't been handed down a huge inheritance in the form of an estate). You are not obligated to hire staff...
But yes, IF someone chooses to live the life of a lord of the (large) manor that comes with a cost. However, that cost is exactly the same whether you are a duke or an earl or not titled at all - it all depends on your own choices.
Which goes to show that the peerage itself does NOT come with expenses - their position in the royal family might but that is a different ball game.
For all non Royal Dukedoms…it definitely does. For the royals well why be in the peerage then? That is my issue, no land, nothing to leave, a useless title…eventually. Time it was rejigged. Titles for life fine if you are a senior royal but not to be passed down.
HighGoalHighDreams
Courtier
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2005
- Messages
- 662
- City
- Unspecified
- Country
- United States
The title denotes a degree of service or relationship to the monarch obtained by the original holder. This is its use, such as it is: so that future generations will always know the status reached by its original holder. Of course, a great many- and increasing- number of people consider this as good as useless. If you agree with them, you are certainly not alone.
When hereditary dukedoms were originally granted, there was ample land within a monarch's bounty to be given (or else he took such lands) in order to show his favor. Most of these dukedoms were earned on the field of battle. But the gift was not only the enormous wealth that came with the granting of land. It was the securing of a legacy. Because the tile was hereditary, future generations to time eternal would know of the service given to the monarch by the dukedom's original holder because his heirs would hold the title. It was a permanent memorial of the grantee's service.
The system looks different on the surface now, but it in fact functions in much the same way. Dukedoms are no longer won on the field of battle. Instead, the "service" given to the monarch is one of service as a full-time working member of the royal family; and indeed we have seen in recent years that we can expect royal dukedoms to be given only to those who the monarch anticipates will be full-time working members of the royal family. And the monarch no longer has in her bounty vast estates to convey, but the gift of legacy is still very much in tact and serves exactly the same purpose: for generations to time immortal to know of the service of the original holder.
Whether this is "useless" is a matter for the people to consider as part of whether they wish to continue with their present form of government.
It has nothing to do with the present form of government. There was a very important role for those peers to play at one point. They all set on the advisory councils and then at one point, with reforms, the House of Lords. With the House of Lords Act 1999 that has been immensely curtailed and the government has moved more towards granting Life Peers. Although they don’t grand Dukedoms. That’s a royal gig. Royalty should be the same if they are working royals. The wishes of Phillip and the Queen were and are different. They were born close to a 100 years ago. Life Peers seems so much healthier and kinder. I mean everyone knows who the Duke of Wellington is…the original one. I mean seeing the current one would tell you he comes down the same line. But does it matter. Hardly. Couldn’t tell you who he is or what he does.
Hereditary Peer In House of Lords and former politician apparently.
Last edited:
It doesn't cost anything to be a duke per se. and people can hold a title but not necessarily use it at all times. If you are Lord X and want to work ina bank, you can just call yourself Charlie X and a lot of people wotn know you are a lord. but if you want a table in a restaurant, you can mention the title or if someone wants you to open the church fete, the title may be a bit of a draw.
so why have a title at all?
Sorry who are you talking about the Peers? They have just inherited them. I presume they think it’s important to keep it going.
The royals…working royals but they should be for their lives. Or really just the children and brothers and sisters of the monarch.
Last edited:
Duc_et_Pair
Imperial Majesty
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2014
- Messages
- 13,234
- City
- City
- Country
- Netherlands
I believe I have read somewehere that the Hon. Angus Ogilvy (younger son of the 11th Earl of Airlie, Lord Ogilvy of Airlie, Alyth and Lintrathen) was offered a peerage alike Antony Armstrong-Jones earlier.
Angus turned down the offer, apparently because he failed to see why to receive a peerage just for marrying a Princess. Later Sir Angus acknowledged that he regretted his decision to decline the offer of a peerage. He thought by declining a peerage he created an unfortunate precedent which Captain Mark Phillips used when he married Princess Anne 10 years later. (Mark Phillips was NOT offered a peerage, contrary to popular belief.)
The example of the penniless bohemien Antony Armstrong-Jones made Earl of Snowdon, Viscount Linley of Nymans shows that one needs no money to be a hereditary Peer.
Angus turned down the offer, apparently because he failed to see why to receive a peerage just for marrying a Princess. Later Sir Angus acknowledged that he regretted his decision to decline the offer of a peerage. He thought by declining a peerage he created an unfortunate precedent which Captain Mark Phillips used when he married Princess Anne 10 years later. (Mark Phillips was NOT offered a peerage, contrary to popular belief.)
The example of the penniless bohemien Antony Armstrong-Jones made Earl of Snowdon, Viscount Linley of Nymans shows that one needs no money to be a hereditary Peer.
Last edited:
Lord Snowdon was a wildly successful photographer. And lived at Kensington Palace. And he kept working. It certainly took a lot of money to sustain his married life. He himself was posh but, as they all tend to be, from a cash poor family.
Certainly Angus was right with the first instinct. Anyway none of it matters because time moves on. No one would have countenanced Bea and Eug husbands getting titles.
His "cash poor family" at least mingled with the "right people" judging by the fact that Tony married a King's daughter and his mother was remarried to a wealthy Earl in the Peerage of Ireland (his half brother is the 7th Earl of Rosse).
Last edited:
You were saying that you thoguht it was foolish to have hereditary titles.. for Royals. I dont know why, and if you think that the monarch's family should not have royal dukedoms etc why should anyone have them?
People don't get them anymore. The families that do have had them centuries in most cases. Apart from royal ones. Not suggesting anyone whole life should be taken from them but going forward there is no need for it anymore. Life Peers seems to be well enough. If Harry's children become Prince and Princesses, and we really need gender equality if they do. That would be three new hereditary ones along with Archie being Sussex going forward. I think it is out of touch with the the times.
Isn't that what they all do. Nothing new there.
I dont see what the problem is. There are still going to be a lot of non royal peers whose peerages will last for a long time...some will die ouot, others wont. Once Harry dies, his son will be Duke of Sussex... nad HIS son will be the next duke. what is wrong about that? I dont quite see what your problem is. You mentioned that it costs money to be a duke but in fact it doesnt.
I don't think it is foolish to have hereditary titles per se. But I think many European countries are now moving in the direction of making hereditary titles a closed class, i.e., existing titles are allowed to continue and be inherited by their legal successors (if there is one), but no new titles are created. The problem of hereditary peerages being given to royals is that, over time, you are increasing the number of hereditary peers, which goes against the aforementioned intention of keeping the hereditary peerage a closed class.
As I argued in my reply to Somebody, a royal earldom has only a marginal impact on the existing "stock" of earls because the United Kingdom already has many of them (191, not counting subsidiary titles that are also held by marquesses and dukes). However, in a very small class of people like the non-royal dukes, who are only 24 at the moment in the UK, adding 4 or 5 former royal dukedoms has a significant impact.
Historically, if you look at medieval France or England, it is indeed a fact that many dukes were originally descendants of Kings. But that was a time when limiting the growth of the peerage was not something that society at large demanded or expected, as it might be the case today.
Last edited:
This. I personally see no need to create anymore hereditary peers. It is nothing personal but it just isn't the way the world is going. And no I don't think Archie should continue his father's title and don't think Charlotte or Louis should pass any dukedoms etc they get on to any children of theirs.
Its hardly going to add that much to the peerage given that most royal heirs mostly only have 2 children in the UK at least... so one becomes King and the other if a boy has a dukedom. or even a girl becomes a royal duchess. what harm is going to be caused by another couple of peerages in the country? It does not cost the country anything and it does not cost the peer anything.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Sticky
