Does the Queen just make up titles

[Polycarp]

Previous Dukes of Cambridge

For comparison, the various Dukes of York

[A.Gwilliam]

@Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus

Being a republic, does Ireland forbid its citizens from accepting such a title, except honorarily (cf prominent Americans who have been knighted, but can’t use the title Sir).

Here’s what the Irish constitution has to say:

[QUOTE=Bunreacht na hÉireann, Art. 40, Sect. 2]
2° No title of nobility or of honour may be accepted by any citizen except with the prior approval of the Government.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t know if there’s any Act of the Oireachtas restricting that “prior approval of the Government” in any way.

Also, I believe it’s the case that foreign citizens given honorary knighthoods don’t use “Sir” because the honour itself doesn’t entitle them to do so, and not because of any restrictions imposed by their own state.

@Mk_VII

Hard to see how Irish citizens could receive a peerage, (unless they applied to become naturalised of course) seeing as they are outwith the Commonwealth. To do so would probably require primary legislation.
Honorary knighthoods, however, are perfectly possible, e.g. Bob Geldorf.

The Act of Settlement prevents foreigners from (amongst other things) becoming a member of the House of Lords. It’s not clear to me that this imposes a restriction upon creating a peer who would not be a member of the House of Lords (assuming that such a thing was even possible prior to 1999). Regardless, the restriction was repealed with respect to Irish citizens by the British Nationality Act 1948.

And for good measure, by virtue of the Ireland Act 1949, Irish citizens are treated identically to Commonwealth citizens in UK law. In other words, they’re not “foreigners” (or to use an obsolete term of art, “aliens”).

[Gukumatz]

@Polycarp

Yopu’re just pissed she didn’t make you Baron Alansmithee!

Duke Guku would be up there, though.

[APB]

[QUOTE=Giles]
And there still is a Duke of Kent .. and since Canterbury is a city in Kent, that would be another reason not to have a Duke of Canterbury, since his hypothetical grace would be apparently subordinate to HRH Prince Edward, Duke of Kent.
[/QUOTE]

That’s not the way it works. The fact that there was already a Marquess of Lothian did not prevent the creations of Dukes of Edinburgh, nor did the fact that there was already a dukedom of Rothesay (held by the heir to the Scottish throne, no less) mean that there couldn’t be created a Marquess of Bute.

[nitpick]

@Polycarp

Especially for Royal dukes, the tendency is to recycle old names that are currently vacant, having reverted to the Crown. Other titles are often created with reference to the career or origins of the person being honored, e.g.,…the Dukes of Marlborough (the Churchills were from Marlborough and built Blenheim Palace there).

The Churchills, who were a Dorset family, weren’t from Marlborough, which is in Wiltshire, and Blenheim Palace wasn’t built there, but rather at Woodstock, which is in Oxfordshire. This is instead an example of an old title being recycled, as John Churchill was given Marlborough as his title on being created an earl in 1689 because the previous Marlborough earldom was one of the most recent titles to have become extinct.

[/nitpick]

Indeed, the Marlborough dukedom is another example of the previous point, as there is also a Wiltshire earldom (held by the Marquess of Winchester).

[psychonaut]

@paperbackwriter

Actually, it does. Pope Leo X granted the title “Fidei defensor” to King Henry VIII in recognition of Henry’s book Assertio Septem Sacramentorum, or Defence of the Seven Sacraments. Yes, this is the very same Henry that broke from the Catholic Church to create the Anglican Church with himself as temporal head. Pope Paul III declared that this title was rescinded, but Parliament declared that the title was still valid and its use continued to the present day.

Given that the title was conferred for a specific act of Henry’s, is there any evidence that the pope intended it to be heritable?

[Polycarp]

@APB

The Churchills, who were a Dorset family, weren’t from Marlborough, which is in Wiltshire, and Blenheim Palace wasn’t built there, but rather at Woodstock, which is in Oxfordshire. This is instead an example of an old title being recycled, as John Churchill was given Marlborough as his title on being created an earl in 1689 because the previous Marlborough earldom was one of the most recent titles to have become extinct.

Thanks for the correction; obviously I completely misunderstood the situation!

@psychonaut

Given that the title was conferred for a specific act of Henry’s, is there any evidence that the pope intended it to be heritable?

No, but Parliament did. At the point in question what the Pope wanted mattered to England about as much as what the Sultan of Kedah wanted.

[Hypnagogic_Jerk]

@Polycarp

No, but Parliament did. At the point in question what the Pope wanted mattered to England about as much as what the Sultan of Kedah wanted.

Yes, but the question is: was the title of Defender of the Faith, as used now by British monarchs, originally granted by the Pope, or is it rather a subsequent grant by Parliament?

[Tim_T-Bonham.net]

@Hypnagogic_Jerk

Yes, but the question is: was the title of Defender of the Faith, as used now by British monarchs, originally granted by the Pope, or is it rather a subsequent grant by Parliament?

Well, I’d think it would have to be from Parliament, since the Pope rescinded his granting of that title (about the time that Henry VIII was excommunicated).

[A.Gwilliam]

@t-bonham@scc.net

Well, I’d think it would have to be from Parliament, since the Pope rescinded his granting of that title (about the time that Henry VIII was excommunicated).

After doing a bit of investigation…

Henry VIII’s titles were given parliamentary authority by An act for the ratification of the King’s majesty’s stile (35 Hen. 8 c. 3). That Act in its preamble recites the existing titles as:

King of England, France and Ireland, defender of the faith, and of the church of England, and also of Ireland, in earth supreme head

Section 1 then defines the titles “henceforth” as:

Henry the Eighth, by the grace of God King of England, France and Ireland, defender of the faith, and of the church of England, and also of Ireland, in earth the supreme head

The above remained in force until the reign of Philip and Mary, when they were repealed by An act repealing all articles and provisions made against the see apostolick of Rome… (1 & 2 Phil. & Mar. c. 8).

My source for the above is Pickering’s The Statutes at Large. Pickering notes incorrectly that the earlier Act was then revived by the Act of Supremacy (1 Eliz. 1 c. 1), which doesn’t agree with the actual provisions of the latter Act as printed by him; the official publication The Chronological Table of the Statutes states that the repeal of 35 Hen. 8 c. 3 was confirmed by the Act of Supremacy (which is certainly my reading of the latter’s text).

Edward VI, Mary I (and later Philip & Mary), and Elizabeth I all used the title “Defender [or “Defenders”] of the Faith”; see also the text of the Tudor accession proclamations. Presumably Mary felt that to omit the title was to claim not to be a defender of the faith, so she was stuck with it! Unless someone is aware of a new papal grant from her time…??