This has actually been discussed on the boards in the past, but I don’t remember the exact outcome. IIRC, he gave up his various titles to join the Royal Navy. Then, someone figured out that he was a descendant of Archduchess Sophie, and a naturalized British citizen because of that. (Has to do with the Hanoverian succession.) Then, George VI granted him titles so that the grandchildren would not be born commoners. Then, Elizabeth made a decree when she became queen, trying to sort everything out. The upshot of it all is that he was born Prince Philip of Greece and is now HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinborough.
There are rules for titles and such, but the Monarch can trump all of them and declare anything s/he wants. You are right about that!
Hmm. I’m thinking that you might be right on this. I have a vague memory that Lady Antonia Fraser had the title because she was the daughter of a Scottish noble, married to a commoner with the last name Fraser.
OK. But her husband does not automatically assume her title, it has to be a special grant. (Usually if she is the only heir or something.) If Lady Jane Smith married Mr. John Doe, he did not become Lord Doe. Whereas if Miss Jane Smith married Lord John Doe, she bacame Jane, Lady Doe.
There is additional info in this thread, and different styles of address and pretty much everything else you wanted to know about British titles and nobility are covered in the link in post #14.
After going to the website referred by Bookkeeper, I must remark that this business of titles and whatnot is so very, very complex. No wonder the Founding Fathers of the United States wanted to have nothing to do with titles and such.
WRS - Long Live the Queen, but may titles and peerages be far away from us!
What if there were two separate peerages called Whatsis, say, a baron and an earl? Would one refer to both of them as “Lord Whatsis”, or would one use a location to distinguish them (and what if they’re both the same location, too), or would one, in that case, use “Baron Whatsis” and “Earl Whatsis”?
And what about formal, stuffy usages? Would one ever, for ceremonial purposes, give the full laundry list of a peer’s titles?
International criminal Mark Thatcher happens to be a baronet. He inherited his baronetcy from his father, Sir Denis Thatcher, Bart., who was given his baronetcy because otherwise he would be stuck in the embarrassing position of being a man with no title married to a baroness, that is, the former prime minister, Margaret Hilda Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher, L.G., O.M., P.C., F.R.S.
All this reminds me of a joke from “Yes, Minister,” in which Hacker and Bernard were dishing Sir Humphrey behind his back. Sir Humphrey was a knight of the Order of St. Michael and St. George. The lowest rank in the order is “companion,” abbreviated as “C.M.G.” Sir Humphrey was a knight commander (K.C.M.G.) and wanted to be a knight grand cross (G.C.M.G.).
According to Bernard, so far as members of the order were concerned, “C.M.G.,” “K.C.M.G.,” and “G.C.M.G.” really stood for “call me God,” “kindly call me God,” and “God calls me God.”
It actually does happen. On another peerage thread, somebody gave the example of a peer who was Earl and Duke of the same geographic area. He had a daughter, who succeeded to one title, IIRC the Duchy, as his heir of line, but the Earldom went by strict male inheritance, so it reverted to a third cousin.
Ordinarily one almost never refers to a Baron as Baron Whatsis, but rather as Lord Whatsis. The exception is in describing him as 7th Baron Whatsis of Wheresis in formal listings. Anybody up to Marquess may also be addressed or alluded to as Lord Whatsis, but it’s most common for Earls to be Earl Whatsis, and not uncommon for Viscounts and Marquesses to be epithetted Viscount or Marquess Whatsis. And you would certainly use that distinction if there were two men, one Viscount or Earl Farnsworth and the other Lord (Baron) Farnsworth. (Address of Dukes is something entirely different, and peculiar.)
The “full train of goods wagons” is used only in formal biographies, Burke’s and Debrett’s Peerages, and conceivably in official proclamations regarding him. Normally he will use only the title of highest rank: Duke, Marquess, Earl, Viscount, or Baron, in that descending order.
===========
BTW, as a descendant of Queen Victoria, Prince Philip is in fact in line for the throne in his own right, though he’s quite a ways down in the line of succession. AFAIK that is the first time that a royal consort has ever been in the line of succession for England, other than the unique case of William and Mary, though Lord Darnley was a possible heir for Mary Queen of Scots, albeit well down the line of succession too.
P.G. Wodehouse was, as far as I can tell, scrupulously correct in how he used the titles of his characters. Lady Constance Threepwood, the daughter of the eighth Earl of Emsworth, married an untitled commoner, Mr. Threepwood, so by courtesy she continued to be called Lady Constance Keeble. When she later married another commoner, Mr. Schoonmaker, she became Lady Constance Schoonmaker.
However, Lord John Doe is not a peer in his own right, but only a younger son of one, just like Lord Peter Wimsey or Lord Randolph Churchill. if Miss Jane Smith marries Lord John Doe, she gets to use “Lady” by courtesy, but not with the style Lady Jane. Instead, she’s known as Lady John Doe, or even Lady John, somewhat analogous to the outmoded style Mrs John Doe. IIRC this even extends to woman commoners marrying royal princes. Absent any other title or privilege, if Sophie Rhys-Jones marries HRH Prince Edward, she’s not Princess Sohpie, but Princess Edward!
The way a titled woman tells you much about her exact position. [ul]
[li]Lady John Doe: the wife of a younger son of a Marquis or higher Peer, but never the wife of a Knight. This woman is never called Lady+<her own firstname>, but may be called Lady John.[/li]
[li]Lady Jane Doe: the daughter of an Earl or higher Peer. This woman is never called Lady Doe, but only Lady Jane Doe or Lady Jane.[/li][li]Lady Doe: [list][/li]the wife of Lord Doe, a Peer in his own right
[li]or a Peeress in her own right [/li] [li]or the wife of Sir John Doe, a Knight. Note that in this case she’s never Lady Jane Doe or Lady Jane, but only Lady Doe.[/li][/ul][/list]
I don’t even know how or why I learned all this stuff.
Yes, there is a scene in Busman’s Honeymoon, where Peter and Harriet drive up to their new home, and one of the local women calls Harriet “Lady Peter.” Peter later remarks that she got Harriet’s title right, and that isn’t common. (It tells you a lot about the character that she did that.)