British Royal Titles

Factual Questions
1

I’m having a tough time assembling this information from the Internet. Apparently, you need a solid grounding in the whole thing before any of it can make sense.

As I understand it, Edward is a prince because he is the son of Queen Elizabeth, the reigning monarch. Yet, his title is The Earl of Wessex and Viscount Severn. Why is that? Also, his wife is the Countess of Wessex. Is a countess the wife of an earl?

As best I can find, the titles are ranked like this:

King - Queen

Prince - Princess

Duke - Duchess

And then there’s Marquess, Earl, Viscount, and Baron, but I’m not sure what the female equivalents of those are.

Would someone please be so kind as to list the titles in order of rank, including both sexes, from King - Queen to whatever is at the bottom? And would you please explain why Edward is all the way down at Earl (and how he can have two titles of different ranks)?

Thank you.

2

First of all, not all these titles are “royal.” You are only royalty if you are a member of the royal family, and that has a fairly specific definition. In fact, every few years, the queen tends to take away a few people’s royal status.

However, except for “king” and “queen,” you would be safe in calling these titles titles of “nobility.” There are some “royal dukes,” but even they would correctly be classified as nobility.

Part of the confusion is that the word “prince” has two meanings. One is the original meaning–used throughout Europe–of a title of nobility for someone whose domain is a “principality.” The second meaning of “prince”–specific to the British royals–is a child or other relative of the monarch (king or queen).

Prince Charles is a prince under both these meanings. He was granted the title of “prince” merely for being the queen’s son and he was also given the title “Prince of Wales.” Other relatives of the queen–her husband, Prince Phillip, and her sons Andrew and Edward–are princes only in the second sense.

Another thing you should know is that one person can have as many titles as he or she might inherit or be granted by the monarch. So, Prince Phillip is also the Duke of Edinburgh; Prince Andrew is also the Duke of York; Prince Edward is also the Earl of Wessex. These titles were also granted at the pleasure of the queen.

Note that none of these people were born with the rights to these titles. Prince Charles was made the Prince of Wales when he was a young man. Andrew and Edward were not given their Dukedom and Earldom until they were married. It’s all at the whim of the monarch.

As to why Edward got only an earldom while his brother got a dukedom – the queen had her reasons, I suppose. It’s up to her. She didn’t have to give her husband and sons any titles. If she had not, they would all have just remained royal princes. (In fact, Phillip didn’t even have the right to the title “prince” until his wife decided he should be one, beucase he was forced to relinquish all his Greek and Russian titles before he married her.)

As I said before, a single person can hold as many titles as he or she inherits or is otherwise granted. If you’re an earl and you get a dukedom, that doesn’t mean you give up your earldom; you keep both. You will probably be addressed usually according to the higher one, though.

For example, Charles is properly titled His Royal Highness Prince Charles Philip Arthur George, Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester, Duke of Cornwall and Rothesay, Earl of Carrick and Baron Renfrew, Lord of the Isles and Great Steward of Scotland.

All that being said, here are the British titles of nobility from highest to lowest

Duke/Duchess
Marquess/Marchioness (“marquess” is the English for “marquis”)
Earl/Countess (“earl” is the English equivalent of “count”)
Viscount/Viscountess
Baron/Baroness

The most prestigious forms of these titles are, obviously, royal titles, but only relatives of the monarch, such as the Duke of Kent, hold such titles. The next level of titles are those of hereditary peers, whose titles are heritable by their heirs. However, it has been a long time since any new hereditary peerages have been created.

Retired politicians (such as Margaret Thatcher), celebrities (such as Andrew Lloyd Webber) and successful businessmen are often awarded “life peerages,” usually a barony, which disappears upon their deaths.

There are additionally two non-peer titles that are granted –

Baronet
Knight

The holders of these titles are addressed as “Sir” or Dame). These are also not heritable.

3

I believe that when the Queen created him Earl of Wessex, she also indicated that upon Prince Philip’s death, Edward would be given the title of Duke of Edinburgh. That way his father’s title would continue in the family.

4

Oh, and I believe that baronetcies are inheritable - that was one of the driving forces of the plot in Jane Austen’s Persuasion, after all. :wink:

5

I believe that was the speculation, but I didn’t hear that she actually said it. Anyway, if it were true, then she would actually have to act in some way as to take the title away from Charles. Upon Phillip’s death, Charles would be his lawful heir and he would otherwise inherit all of Phillip’s titles, including Duke of Edinburgh.

6

You’re right. Baronetcies are heritable. However, baronets are not peers. You can think of them as inheritable knighthoods.

7

For more information, you can look here – http://www.heraldica.org/topics/odegard/titlefaq.htm

8

Wow. That is fabulous coverage of the question, Acsenray. More than I’d hoped for, really, and perfectly clear. Thank you very much.

9

Here is the official press release announcing the decision.

http://www.nds.coi.gov.uk/coi/coipress.nsf/1de7908b03e684d580256bf400346021/3729dcc6b989e7658025679700534a5d?OpenDocument

The key point about the arrangement is that it will not happen until after both the Queen and Prince Philip are dead. Either Philip will die first and Charles will inherit it (but will, of course, only use it as one of his lesser titles), whereupon it will revert to the Crown when he succeeds his mother, or the Queen will die first and the dukedom will not revert until Philip dies. Titles that revert to the Crown can be re-granted by the monarch to someone else.

10

I seem to recall that the Prince of Wales title is somewhat of a British tradition that began with Edward I aka Longshanks (1272-1307). That is to say, he was the first to declare his son (also named Edward), next in line to the throne, the Prince of Wales and that the current Prince of Wales aka Prince Charles is number 21 in the successsion of this title.

taken from here: http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page61.asp
Under the Statute of Wales of 1284, Wales was brought into the English legal framework and the shire system was extended. In the same year, a son was born in Wales to Edward and Queen Eleanor (also named Edward, this future king was proclaimed the first English Prince of Wales in 1301).

and taken from here: http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/about/role/role_creation.html
The Prince is the 21st to hold the title, in a line which began in 1301, when Edward I formally created his son - destined to be Edward II - Prince of Wales. The title is intended for the male heir apparent to the throne, but there is no automatic succession. The title is renewed only at the Sovereign’s pleasure.

11

[hijack]
Just curious, then - what would royal children from other monarchies be called in English? I know that some of them have foreign-language titles that have been adopted for English use (such as Czarevitch or Dauphin - although both of those refer specifically to heirs apparent); but is there a general term that would cover them without being confused with another title of nobility?
[/hijack]

12

Actually, IINM, the title Duke of Cornwall and its holdings transfer to the first born son and heir to the throne automatically at birth.

13

As far as I know, there is no convenient term. Both prinz and fuerst are translated as “prince.”

14

True - and the distinction is an important one - but the second meaning is not specific to the British royal family; equivalent titles are used in a similar way by most of the other reigning European royal families, including those of Belgium (‘prince’/‘prins’), Denmark (‘prins’), the Netherlands (‘prins’), Norway (‘prins’) and Sweden (‘prins’). The rules as to who gets the title varies, but the basic principle is the same. For obvious reasons, these get translated into English as ‘prince’. In each case, there are equivalent titles for women which can be translated as ‘princess’.

Spain is different, in that children of the Kings of Spain are given the title ‘infante’ or ‘infanta’ and these are usually left untranslated in English, partly because there is no direct English equivalent but also because the reader is expected know what they mean. The current Spanish heir apparent, the ‘principe de Asturias’ (who is nominally a prince in ascenray’s first meaning), is usually referred to in English as Prince Felipe, although his title is sometimes translated as ‘the Prince of the Asturias’.

15

I have a small note, which may prove helpful. I recall that the book “What Jane Austen ate and Charles Dickens knew” reprinted a complete (or relatively complete) seating precedence table (for seating orders at formal dinners in the Victorian era), which not only had all the intricacies of precedence for the peerage, but also how this intermingled with ecclesiastics and other notables - e.g. who goes to dinner first, the Duke or the Bishop?

I’ve just spent half an hour going through my books, but can’t find it, so, unfortunately, cannot provide an ISBN number or even confirm that the list is where I remember it to be.

16

That brings up another question similar to the discussion about military ranks. What happens if a duke gives an order to Edward, who is only an earl? Can he call upon his mother to countermand it? Also, can Elizabeth give orders to her husband since he’s only a prince?

17

I believe both Elizabeth and Phillip do have military titles of various kinds. I can’t remember what they are, though. Phillip actually did serve in the Royal Navy, I believe.

The monarch, is, of course, everyone’s superior, and I suppose traditionally you would obey the monarch or else you would be committing treason or something.

However, I don’t know of any rule that says that an earl is bound to obey the instructions of a duke based solely on their titles. I don’t think it works that way. They’re both peers of the realm, after all.

jiHymas, I think I have that book too. I’ll have to look for it to see if that’s in there.

18

jiHymas & acsenray: I don’t know if this is the sort of thing you’re looking for, but the Burke’s Peerage website gives the order of precedence for such matters as being called in to dinner.

19

A noble of higher rank has no authority altogether on a noble of lesser rank, and there’s no way he can give him orders. They’re called “peers” for a reason. Not only it’s true in modern times, but it was also true centuries ago. The only times when a noble of higher rank would have some sort of authority on another of lesser rank was the medieval era, and this only when the latter was the vassal of the former. Even then, the vassal would only have limited duties to his liege lord (who himself had duties to his vassal). It wasn’t an absolute authority in any way.

20

link