Talk:Courtesy titles in the United Kingdom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Non-peerage courtesy titles

How come non-peerage courtesy titles aren't mentioned here? I've heard physicians are given the courtesy title 'doctor' (at least in the UK) but aren't doctors as such because they don't hold PhDs. (jayboy2005), thats why a surgeon reverts back to a Mr. shouldnt that be in here?

Physicians do hold a Medical Doctorate, so Dr. is quite appropriate Nik42 03:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

In Britain the basic, qualifying medical degree is actually a bachelorate, not a doctorate- physicians qualify with the conjoint degree as Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery. The docotrate is a higher degree--Captdoc 20:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Princes & Courtesy titles

How come princes don't use courtesy titles? Why do the royal dukes have earldoms and baronies if theyre never going to be mentioned? Does anybody know why the Duke of Windsor wasn't given any lesser titles? --130.88.188.105 22:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Some cases

BTW, the reason "Earl Vane" wasn't used by the Marquess of Londonderry (for instance), is because it was under that title that the Marquesses sat in parliament, I think. Such titles are not usually used by Scottish or Irish peers as courtesy titles when others are available, as far as I'm aware, in order to avoid confusion. But I'm not completely sure on this. Does anyone know? Tilman? john 06:10, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that matters. The Marquess of Downshire, for instance, sat as Earl of Hillsborough, which is also used as his son's courtesy title. The Marquess of Londonderry was made Earl Vane after being given the Marquessate, so between the two creations his heir would have have been Viscount Castlereagh by default. I suspect they just kept the title they had been using previously. Proteus 08:45, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Another possibility is that Viscount Castlereagh has more lustre than Earl Vane because of the statesman in the family who used that title.Chelseaboy 18:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, can it really be said that the heirs of the Dukes of Edinburgh and York use such titles? If Andrew had a son, for instance, he would be known as "Prince N of York", not "Earl of Inverness". john 06:14, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but as can be seen from the Kent and Gloucester peerages, they could be used in the future (unlikely in Edinburgh's case, admittedly, but still theoretically possible). Proteus 08:45, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I believe the style "Prince Charles of Edinburgh" was actually applied to the present Prince of Wales before his mother succeeded to the throne.Chelseaboy 18:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Odd that the Earl of Lincoln's son uses no courtesy title, but it seems confirmed by alt.talk.royalty - the references to the death of the late Earl of Lincoln in 2001 do not refer to his successor (his grandson) as having been "Lord anything". I suppose Lord Clinton is taken... john 06:18, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes, he's listed in Burke's as "The Hon. Firstname Surname". (I can't remember what his name is, at the moment.) Proteus 08:45, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The present earl of Lincoln, Robert Edward Fiennes-Clinton, has no children. He succeeded his grandfather in 2001, his father having died sometime before. See [1]. john 18:15, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

But the current Earl is listed in the Burke's I have access to as the heir, because it's the 1999 edition. Proteus 18:48, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Titles for wives

Okay, I may be totally wrong here, but I've never heard a baron's wife referred to as "Baroness...", only as "Lady..." Nor have I ever heard one referred to as a "peeress". Are we sure about this, or is it just something that's fallen out of usage? Deb 18:58, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"Peeress" is definitely still used to described the wife of a peer (or a woman holding a peerage in her own right). The wives of Barons are called Baronesses in the same circumstances as Barons are called Barons, i.e. hardly ever - the only real occasions for the use of the term are legal documents (they'd be "Jane Mary Baroness Smith" or whatever) and when discussing peerages. The use of "Baroness" in normal circumstances is incorrect, and even though it is becoming more common amongst life peeresses it is still a solecism. (If I had my way, Wikipedia would use the correct terminology and call all life peeresses "The Lady Thatcher" or what not, but I doubt that'll ever happen.) Proteus 19:19, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I do not doubt that "The Lady X" is correct, but the Hansard refers to Baronesses as "Baroness X," while using "Lord X" for Lords. -- Emsworth 20:01, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
E.g. [2] - "Baroness Prashar rose to move..."
I wonder if it does that to distinguish between "proper" baronesses and all the various kinds of "Lady"? Deb 20:22, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
They don't, however, make any distinction between Barons and Lords of Parliament, the way they do with Baronesses and Ladies of Parliament. And all the problems with "looking like a knight's wife syndrome" could be solved by using the definite article occasionally... Proteus 20:37, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
It has become clear to me that Hansard is now completely useless in matters of correct form, as is the House of Lords itself. I could go into a long rant about the degeneracy of the government in these matters, but I'll spare you as it would probably be very dull. Perhaps I'll create Incorrect Form to take out my frustrations. :-) Proteus 20:37, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Ah, but that'd be a non-NPOV title - perhaps, instead, Form with disputed usage or Form with disputed correctitude (though that implicitly endorses the viewpoint that there can be a single 'correct' answer...)? ;-)
James F. (talk) 03:32, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] A question

Do daughters and younger sons get to keep their courtesy title after their father dies and their elder brother inherits it? Morwen 20:03, May 18, 2004 (UTC)

Yep. The first example that springs to mind is Lady Victoria Hervey (whose article, I've just noticed, needs moving...). Two of her brothers have been Marquess of Bristol since her father died (including the 8th and present Marquess). Proteus (Talk) 20:44, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

That is not right. She has no title, unless she were to marry her brother. If anything the use of "Lady" is a nickname bestowed on her by the tabliod press. -- Popsracer 23:25, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
No, the daughter of an earl, marquess, or duke is entitled to the style of "Lady Firstname Surname". john 23:48, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
I stand corrected. -- Popsracer 02:44, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wives of peers

Is it correct to say that the wives of peers have only "courtesy titles?" My understanding is that they are peeresses (not in their own right, of course), and that this is a substantive issue. They, for instance, had the right to trial before the House of Lords, and all the other privileges enjoyed by peers when peers had privileges. They could not sit in the House of Lords or elect representative peers, of course, but this doesn't seem to me to mean that it is merely a "courtesy title." john k 13:18, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think there's a grey area in there, because wives have precedence even though legally they are not substantive. The bit about having the right to trial before the HoL makes sense, because back when, if you wanted to put pressure on a peer, and the wives didn't have the same privilege, you could have hauled them before an ordinary process. Noel (talk) 23:05, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
The references to the wives of peers having a courtesy title need to be removed; they're just inaccurate. The wife of a peer is a peeress; it's not a courtesy title. Lord Arundel (son of the Duke of Norfolk) isn't really Earl of Arundel; he is merely styled by the title. But his mother the Duchess of Norfolk is really Duchess of Norfolk. While it is true that she is not Duchess of Norfolk in her own right, that doesn't make it a courtesy title. I'll wait a few days before changing this just in order to allow comments. Noel S McFerran 03:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I thought. You should go ahead and do it. john k 05:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ex-wives & widows of peers

The divorced wife of a peer can style herself N, husband's rank of X eg Sarah, Duchess of York or Diana, Princess of Wales. Widows can use the same style. If they remarry do they keep their courtesy titles or loose them? (Alphaboi867 22:32, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC))

They lose them if they remarry. john k 01:17, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Actually, until a few years ago (i.e. for centuries) they kept them: see the House of Lords judgments in Cowley v Cowley (1901) which I have just added to the article. But nowadays they drop them.Chelseaboy 18:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Widows can use the same style as divorcees but retain the right of being addressed as wives of the peer. E.g. if Lady Diana, Princess of Wales would have been a dowager of HRH The Prince of Wales, then she could style herself HRH Diana, Princess of Wales, thus retaining the use of HRH.


Women who remarry after their divorce from a peer or knight do not lose the right to be addressed as the ex-wife of a peer. The precident set by Cowley v. Cowley has not changed. For example the ex-wife of The Earl Spencer is free to continue to sytle herself as Victoria, Countess Spencer (or Victoria, Lady Spencer) despite her remarriage. Sarah, Duchess of York will remain so even if she were to be married and divorced 10 more times.

I should point out that the use of the style of Royal Highness is based on Letters Patent and Royal Warrants. HM The Queen removed the style of Royal Highness from Sarah and Diana following their divorces. Nothing they could do or the death of their ex-husband could return the style to them.

I have removed from the article the portion which indicates that ex-wives are no longer free to continue styling themselves as ex-wives of peers after a remarriage. This is inaccurate and whithout basis.

Queen Brandissima - brandy.kelley@gmail.com

[edit] Two questions

Question 1: When is a courtesy title used, provided one is available? Is it 1) always, 2) only if the person himself wishes so/claims it, 3) only if the actual title holder agrees to it, or 4) 2 and 3 in combination? The important point is 3: If I were the Marquess of Bien and Earl Thomasstone and for some reason didn't want my eldest son to be known as Earl Thomasstone, could I refuse him that?

Question 2: As I have understood it, Princes of the UK never use courtesy titles (or Charles would have been known as the Earl of Merioneth for a short period, and pretty much every person in William's situation would be known as the Duke of Cornwall or at least the Earl of Chester). Is this understanding correct? If so, I believe the article should mention it. (I do assume, though, that if the Earl of Wessex has a son, he will be known from birth as Viscount Severn, although formally being HRH Prince X of Wessex.) -- Jao 10:25, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

1) It's a combination, really, and the theoretical situation is complicated. The actual title holder can't really stop his heir using a courtesy title, but he does have some say over which one it is. If the Viscount Castlereagh, for instance, heir to the Marquess of Londonderry, didn't like the fact that the senior title of "Earl Vane" is not used as a courtesy title, he couldn't really insist on using it, as which title is used is a matter for the Peer concerned to decide. If however, you were John Smith, 5th Marquess of Bien and 7th Earl Thomasstone, and you didn't want your heir to use "Earl Thomasstone" (perhaps because you were known by it before succeeding to the Marquessate), you couldn't really stop him from assuming the invented courtesy title of "Lord Smith" (or even "Earl Smith"), as the heir to a Marquessate is entitled to a courtesy title, even if he isn't entitled to insist on choosing which one it is. It is, however, possible for a family to agree not to use a courtesy peerage, such as is the case with the Earls of Lincoln. If, however, it is customary for one to be used, the fact that the heir doesn't use it wouldn't stop it being used in legal documents ("John Henry William Smith, Esquire, commonly called Earl Thomasstone"). The vast majority of the time, however, this question would never arise, as I can't think of a single situation when Peer and heir have disagreed over the use of courtesy titles. Most of the time it's a matter of custom, and most Peers wouldn't dream of interfering with custom.
2) Yes, you are correct in saying that Princes do not use courtesy titles. However, if this were not the case, Prince William could not use any of his father's titles, as none of them are hereditary and so he is not the heir apparent to any of them. He would have to be the Lord Greenwich, as the eldest son of the Earl of Merioneth, eldest son of the Duke of Edinburgh. Proteus (Talk) 10:59, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for yet another very clarifying (and quick!) answer, Proteus. -- Jao 11:35, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
But, younger sons of Kings and Queens, when holding peerages, use courtesy titles for their heirs, for example the dukes of Kent and Gloucester.
VM 11:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I have seen that this has just begun, because either heir apparent of the dukedoms does and will not be titled as "HRH", even when they succeed their fathers in the dukedoms.
VM 11:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
To clarify, it's not because they are (descended from) younger sons, but because the title of Prince/HRH only goes two generations. The future third duke thus cannot be "Prince N of Kent" and so he uses a courtesy title of the more usual kind. —Tamfang 05:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
How is Lord Wavell's heir-apparent addressed?
When the Earldom of Wavell was still extant, the courtesy title was "Viscount Keren". Proteus (Talk) 09:50, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I thank you, sir, and I apologise for having believed the earldom to be extant.

[edit] Definite article

I think perhaps we need to edit the main article to remove the definite article or else clarify its usage. For instance "The Duke's son is not the Marquess of Westminster" The definite article can only be used correctly with the substantive peer not the courtesy title holder. So while the Duke of Westminster is also the Earl Grosvenor his son is just Earl Grosvenor. Likewise the former Tory leader in the Lords was The Rt. Hon Lord Cranborne not the The Rt. Hon the Lord Cranborne as his father was the holder of the title.

Buckingham Palace disagrees with you on that. They use the definite article for both substantive and courtesy peers. Proteus (Talk) 15:49, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This being the same Buckingham Palace that happily told us Camilla wouldn't be Princess of Wales or Queen for weeks before quietly conceeding that she would but just wouldn't use it. Frankly they have become worse and worse over the years at abiding by what were clearly understood rules. They still use the definite article elsewhere - Sons of the monarch use "The prince" whereas grandsons do not.
a) That was Clarence House. b) They've done it for decades. It's hardly a new thing. Proteus (Talk) 13:40, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It was announced that she would be known as HRH The Duchess of Cornwall. It was never stated taht she didn't actually become The Princess of Wales. She is legally The Princess of Wales she is merely known as The Duchess of Cornwall.

Children of the monarch use "The" e.g. The Princess Anne, The Prince Andrew, The Princess Margaret. Use of the definiate article is reserved for the children of a monarch and is not to be used for chilren of a Prince or Princess. - Queen Brandissima


Burke's peerage (see the link I added) says quite clearly that only substantive peer get the "The" before their names. I would imagine, however, that if one were writing and needed to refer to a courtesy peer in a phrase that would normally call for a definite article, and one didn't want to sound un-grammatical, saying something like "I saw the Earl of X" (as opposed to "I saw The Earl of X", for a substantive peer) would not go amiss. And in cases like "John Smith, Earl of Y", it would only be "John Smith, The Earl of Y" if he were substantive - either form (with or without) would be grammatical there, so you can drop the article entirely for courtesy peers. Noel (talk) 23:05, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
If Burke's says something, it's a good indication that the opposite is true. And as for distinguishing substantive and courtesy peers: (a) for envelopes and formal lists and the like, the difference between "The Most Hon. The Marquess of Lansdowne" (substantive) and "The Marquess of Hartington" (courtesy) should be obvious to anyone; (b) in normal running text, it's rarely important whether someone is a substantive or courtesy peer, and when it is vitally important it's quite easy to say "the Marquess of Hartington (the Duke of Devonshire's eldest son) today said" or "the Lord Smith of Finsbury (a Labour life peer) today announced"; (c) when name and title are given together, substantive peers normally get their numerals, so the difference between "Charles Petty-FitzMaurice, 9th Marquess of Lansdowne" and "William Cavendish, Marquess of Hartington" should again be obvious; and (d) when life peers are involved and (c) doesn't work, the substantive peer is normally called "James Mackay, Baron Mackay of Clashfern" whilst his courtesy peer equivalent is called "Charles Gordon Lennox, Lord Settrington", with the difference again obvious. So I really can't see any situation in which important information is not put across by using "The" for courtesy peers. But luckilly I don't need to worry about it, since I have Buckingham Palace and the Lord Chamberlain on my side, and it doesn't matter what Burke's says because everyone knows it's always wrong. :-) Proteus (Talk) 19:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting

I hope nobody's upset that I moved the (lengthy) actual list to List of courtesy titles; the article was really getting kind of long, and it did seem the perfect thing to exile to a "List of" article. (I chose that title by analogy with List of Dukes), etc. I was thinking of asking here before I did it, but after reflection I decided that it couldn't really be that controversial (given all the precedent), and decided to just be more efficient and be WP:BOLD about it. Anyway, if I ticked anyone off, my apologies in advance. Noel (talk) 23:11, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Seems less messy certainly. I don't know how people feel but I've never been that happy with the list of courtesy titles including those that don't exist. As I appreciate they are used, if incorrectly, perhaps we could put quotes or something around them. E.g. for "Lord North", "Earl of Glamorgan" "Viscount Grosmont" Alci12
This would seem sensible. I would oppose an effort to remove them entirely, since this is not a list of subsidiary titles, but a list of courtesy titles which are used. BTW, do you think we should try to add courtesy titles used for extinct titles to the list? Or to a separate list? Or would that be too complicated? john k 16:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
There might be a case for adding courtesy titles for very famous titles - those very recently extinct like the Dukedom of Portland or Newcastle - but I'm not sure otherwise. There are something like 800 extinct titles it would be a real pain for little value added!Alci12
It would also get quite complicated, as courtesy titles haven't always stayed the same. (I believe the Earls De La Warr, for instance, have used "Viscount Cantelupe", "Lord West" and "Lord Buckhurst" at various times during the (not fantastically long) existence of their Earldom.) Proteus (Talk) 19:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's a list to start off, though: Earls in the Peerage of the United Kingdom:

Title Created Extinct Courtesy title Notes
Countess of Bath 1803 1808 none never needed
Earl Manvers 1806 1955 Viscount Newark  
Earl of Orford 1806 1931 Lord Walpole  
Earl Whitworth 1815 1825 Lord Adbaston never needed
Earl Brownlow 1815 1921 Viscount Alford  
Earl Beauchamp 1815 1979 Viscount Elmley  
Earl de Grey 1816 1923 Lord Lucas of Crudwell never needed, Marquess of Ripon from 1859
Earl of Falmouth 1821 1852 Lord Boscawen-Rose  
Earl Somers 1821 1883 Viscount Eastnor  
Earl Amherst 1826 1993 Viscount Holmesdale  
Earl of Dudley 1827 1833 Viscount Ednam never needed
Earl of Munster 1831 2000 Viscount FitzClarence  
Earl of Camperdown 1831 1933 Viscount Duncan  
Earl of Ripon 1833 1923 Viscount Goderich Marquess of Ripon from 1871
Earl of Auckland 1839 1849 Lord Eden never needed
Earl FitzHardinge 1841 1857 Lord Segrave never needed
Earl of Ellenborough 1844 1871 Viscount Southam never needed
Earl Canning 1859 1862 none never needed
Earl of Dartrey 1866 1933 Lord Cremorne  
Earl of Feversham 1868 1963 Viscount Helmsley  
Earl of Dufferin 1871 1988 Viscount Clandeboye Marquess of Dufferin and Ava from 1888
Earl Sydney 1874 1890 none never needed
Earl of Ravensworth 1874 1904 Lord Eslington  
Earl of Northbrook 1876 1929 Viscount Baring  
Earl of Beaconsfield 1876 1881 Viscount Hughenden never needed
Earl of Redesdale 1877 1886 none never needed
Earl of Lathom 1880 1930 Lord Skelmersdale  
Earl Sondes 1880 1996 Viscount Throwley  
Earl de Montalt 1886 1905 Viscount Hawarden never needed
Earl of Londesborough 1887 1937 Viscount Raincliffe  
Earl of Ancaster 1892 1983 Lord Willoughby de Eresby  
Earl Carrington 1895 1928 Viscount Wendover Marquess of Lincolnshire from 1912
Earl of Crewe 1895 1945 Lord Houghton Marquess of Crewe from 1911
Earl Egerton of Tatton 1897 1909 Viscount Salford never needed
Earl Roberts 1901 1955 Viscount St Pierre never needed
Earl Loreburn 1911 1923 none never needed
Earl Brassey 1911 1919 Viscount Hythe  
Earl Curzon of Kedleston 1911 1925 Viscount Scarsdale never needed, Marquess Curzon of Kedleston from 1921
Earl of Athlone 1917 1957 Viscount Trematon  
Earl of Midleton 1920 1979 Viscount Dunsford  
Earl Buxton 1920 1934 none never needed
Earl of Ypres 1922 1988 Viscount French  
Earl of Birkenhead 1922 1985 Viscount Furneaux  
Earl Farquhar 1922 1923 none never needed
Countess Cave of Richmond 1928 1938 none life peerage
Earl of Willingdon 1931 1979 Viscount Ratendone Marquess of Willington from 1936
Earl Wavell 1947 1953 Viscount Keren  
Earl Jowitt 1951 1957 Viscount Stevenage never needed
Earl of Avon 1961 1985 Viscount Eden  
Earl of Kilmuir 1962 1967 Lord Fyfe of Dornoch never needed
Earl Alexander of Hillsborough 1963 1965 Lord Weston-super-Mare never needed

Proteus (Talk) 09:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

And of course there are those extant Earldoms of the UK that have been independent at some point but no longer are:

Title Created Courtesy title Notes
Earl of Wellington 1812 Lord Douro became Marquess of Wellington in 1812 and Duke of Wellington in 1814
Earl Vane 1823 Viscount Seaham Marquess of Londonderry until 1854, and again from 1872
Earl of Mulgrave 1831 Viscount Normanby became Marquess of Normanby in 1838
Earl of Burlington 1831 Lord Cavendish of Keighley became Duke of Devonshire in 1858
Earl of Zetland 1838 Lord Dundas became Marquess of Zetland in 1892
Earl of Ellesmere 1846 Viscount Brackley became Duke of Sutherland in 1963
Earl of Reading 1917 Viscount Erleigh became Marquess of Reading in 1926

Proteus (Talk) 10:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scottish titles

"An Heir Presumptive (e.g. a brother, nephew, or cousin) does not use a courtesy title, since there is no absolute certainty that he will ever actually inherit the substantive title."

My understanding of Scottish titles is that the HP can use 'Master of X' though not any peerage titles. However it is also my understanding of Scots law that 'Master of' is a substantive title not a courtesy title. I'm happy to add it because it clarifies though it is not exactly comparable to English/British courtesy titlesAlci12 12:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Husbands?

Does the husband of a peeress in her own right get a title? E.g., if the Duchess of X were to marry, would her husband be called Duke of X? Or perhaps some other title? Nik42 03:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

No, there are no such titles. If the Duchess of X marries a commoner, he would still be Mr. John Smith. -- Jao 19:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
This was not always true in England; "The Kingmaker" was earl of Warwick and Salisbury, one of these titles (I forget which) belonging properly to his wife. When did this practice end? —Tamfang 05:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LIfe peers

No mention is made in this article of life peers; is the situation different for them because their peerage has no heir by definition? Are the children of a life peer entitled to a "the honorable", before and after the peer's death? --Jfruh (talk) 14:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

As regards courtesy titles, they're treated in exactly the same way as hereditary peers. Proteus (Talk) 15:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Life Peers are all Barons, therefore there is no situation in which the eldest son uses one of his Father's secondary titles--Captdoc 20:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A question

Is the eldest daughter of a duke, marquess, or earl entitled to courtesy title ?

Yes 18:54, 29 Sep. 2006 (UTC)

Daughters are treated the same regardless of who is eldest, so the "unmarried daughters" column in the table applies. I guess that's because a daughter can never be heir apparent (and only in very few cases heir presumptive) to a peerage. -- Jao 17:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
A daughter could technically be heir apparent. If, for instance, the holder of an old Scottish title that descended to heirs general (like the original Earldom of Mar) had a son who died leaving only daughters, the eldest of those daughters would be heir apparent, because no birth could stop her succeeding on her noble grandparent's death. I don't believe, however, that this has ever actually happened, so the situation regarding her possible use of a courtesy peerage remains unclear. There doesn't seem to be any logical reason why she could not do so, but it would be without precedent. Proteus (Talk) 10:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Don't even heiresses presumptive of Scottish titles use "Mistress of X" as a courtesy title? The ancient Earldom of Mar, for instance, doesn't have any subsidiary titles, does it? john k 17:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, they do (although it seems to be a relatively recent usage, dating back only half a century or so). And the original Earldom of Mar is held with the Lordship of Garioch. Proteus (Talk) 19:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A question

Is writ of acceleration also available to children of viscount and baron ?

Yes 20:35, 29 Sep. 2006 (UTC)

As long as they hold more than one peerage. Proteus (Talk) 10:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legitimated children

If a peer marries the mother of his illegitimate children, are those children allowed to use courtesy titles? I didn't think so, but on the line of succession to the British Throne page Lord Lascelles's oldest two children, who were born before their parents' marriage, are listed with "The Hon." before their names and referred to as "legitimated" children. Is the page in error, or do "legitimated" children receive courtesy titles, even if though they can't actually inherit the peerage? Note that they were listed as "skipped," in the line of succession, so that is not in error. TysK 00:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I think they get the "The Hon." but they wouldn't get courtesy titles of other sorts, so far as I'm aware. When the Earl of Harewood dies, it is Alexander Lascelles, and not his older brother Benjamin, who will become Viscount Lascelles, certainly. john k 16:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Knights and Dames

There's only one mention of Knights and none of Dames in the article. Doesn't it need to be pointed out rather more clearly (in the first sentence and elsewhere) that the wife of Sir Somebody Something is referred to as Lady Something, but that the husband of Dame Somebody Something doesn't get a title? Alluding to this only in the context of civil partnerships is the tail wagging the dog. --GuillaumeTell 10:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Widows

When a peer divorces, does the widow whose husband previously held the title revert to the title she held before the new peer's marriage (i.e., without "dowager" or firstname+title)? For example: Say the Earl of London dies. His wife is still styled "The Rt. Hon. The Countess of London" until the new earl marries, when she becomes "The Rt. Hon. The Dowager Countess of London" (or, if she prefers, "The Rt. Hon. Mary, Countess of London"). If the new earl and his wife divorce, does she revert back to "The Rt. Hon. The Countess of London"? As her ex-daughter-in-law will now simply be "Jane, Countess of London" it would seem obvious for her to, but I don't know what standard practice is. Whatever the answer, it should be included in the article, given the high number of divorced peers. TysK 02:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

  • According to a book by Valentine Heywood and Gerald Wollaston (written in 1951), when a peer dies the only "correct" style for a widow is "the Dowager" regardless of whether her husband's heir is married, widowed, divorced, single or non-existent. It has become usual to drop "the Dowager" but they say in the book, "There is no justification for this. All widows of peers are summoned to Coronations or other State occasions as Dowagers, and they are so addressed by the House of Lords." DrKiernan 09:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out that to be styled a Dowager the current title holder must be a decendant of your late husband. E.g. if the new Earl is your son, grandson or stepson you may be styled as a dowager, but not if his brother, uncle or cousin succeeded him.

I don't believe you, O anonymous one. —Tamfang 07:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Inheritance" of Courtesy Titles

I have a little bundle of questions:
When the heir apparent (HA) of a peer dies childlessly before his father, the eldest of his brothers "inherit" the courtesy title, for sure. But what, if he has a son: Will the son "inherit" the courtesy title of his father? And what if he has had a courtesy title by being the grandson of a peer? And what in the case of no grandsons of the peer by his eldest son and the next son of the peer is dead but leaving a son, will the nephew of the peer's eldest son "inherit" his uncle's courtesy title?
Sorry, it is a little bit confusing. And I hope, that I have not made you cry for pain by these questions. Thank you all for answering me. And please, after answering, leave a sign to look here on my talk page. Thank you.
VM 11:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Basically, you are right. If an heir apparent dies, his courtesy title passes to his eldest son. If that son had a courtesy title of his own, it simply goes out of use. Here is a hypothetical situation using fictional peers: the Duke of London's eldest son and heir is styled Marquess of Birmingham. His son is styled Earl of Greenwich. If Lord Birmingham dies, Lord Greemwich is now styled Marquess of Birmingham. The style Earl of Greenwich is no longer used, unless the new Lord Birmingham has a son of his own, who would now use it. On the second point, you are correct as well. If Lord Birmingham would die without any sons, and his next eldest brother was no longer living but had a living son, that son would now use the style Marquess of Birmingham. TysK 23:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Though sometimes the brother adopts a different courtesy title, to reduce confusion. Quoting Valentine Heywood, British Titles (1951, p.102):
The first-born son of the present Earl of Rosebery ... was, following family custom, known as Lord Dalmeny, although the full style of the barony to which reference is made is Dalmeny and Primrose. But when Lord Dalmeny died in 1931 his infant brother, who then became heir, was given the courtesy style of Lord Primrose. Primrose is the family name. Similarly, when the sixth Marquess of Lansdowne's eldest son, known as the Earl of Kerry, died in 1933, the second son, who then became heir, adopted the courtesy style of Earl of Shelburne, another of Lord Lansdowne's peerages.
—Tamfang 05:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] wives, ex-wives and widows of "styled" persons

And what about wives, ex-wives and widows of persons who have or had a courtesy title as heirs apparent to peers? Do they also have a courtesy title in a similar way to a peer's wife, ex-wife or widow? And if they have, which one?
VM 14:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Courtesy peers' wives, ex-wives and widows use styles in exactly the same way that actual peers' wives, ex-wives, and widows do. The same goes for their children (for example, a courtesy marquess's sons and daughters are styled "Lord" and "Lady" in front of their names, and a courtesy viscount's children are styled "The Hon.") I'm not sure what you mean by "which one." TysK 23:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] grandchildren of Dukes and Marquesses by younger sons

Sorry, I have a few further questions: Do the grandchildren of Dukes and Marquesses by younger sons have the courtesy title of "The Honourable"? Or is it absolutely incorrect to style them that way? (If it's incorrect, someone should tell that to Leo van de Pas)
VM 20:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Unless those grandchildren hold some office that entitles them to the style "The Hon.," it's absolutely incorrect. Normally, children of younger sons of dukes and marquesses use no special styles whatsoever. TysK 21:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] children having died before peerage of parents

Sorry, it's me again. ;)
And what about children of peers who died before their father resp. mother became a peer, either by succession or by creation? Do they get a courtesy title (Hon. / Lord/Lady) posthumously? For example, the 1st Baron Ebury had - at least - eleven children, of whom only seven reached the year of 1857 when he was created a baron; do the other four (two sons and two daughters - none of them died older than aged two) also wear the prefix 'the Hon.' posthumously? Or aren't they allowed to be called that way 'naturally'?
VM 18:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

In a word, no. You can probably check with Proteus for specific details, but I'm quite sure that children do not receive styles "posthumously." I can think of two obvious examples: Raymond Asquith, the oldest son of Prime Minister H.H. Asquith, who died in action in World War I nearly a decade before his father was created Earl of Oxford and Asquith; he is known by no special styles, even though his own son later succeeded to the earldom. Then there's Sarah Macmillan, the youngest daughter of Prime Minister Harold Macmillan, who died many years before her father's elevation to Earl of Stockton very late in his life. Though Lord Stockton's other daughters are, Sarah is never referred to by the courtesy title "Lady." TysK 20:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for making clear what I have also thought to be right. But isn't it that they could be granted those titles specially after the accession of their parents to the peerage? Or is that also only for living children/siblings?
VM 08:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Again, you can ask Proteus to be sure, but I can't think of any situation where that would be necessary. Since courtesy titles of peers' children are social, not legal, the only important purpose they serve is to provide a way to refer to them in public-- which obviously isn't necessary if they're dead. I suppose the monarch could "retroactively" grant a courtesy title if s/he wanted, but again, I can't imagine why it would ever happen. Is that clear? TysK 04:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Though it isn't the exact same thing I have a little something to add. If you are the daughter of The Viscount Althorp (just for example) you are known as the Hon. GivenName Surname. If your father dies before he inherits primary title of The Earl Spencer you are not stuck as the Hon. GivenName Surname forever. Upon the passing of your grandfather your brother, the new Earl Spencer, may petition for you and any other siblings to be upgraded to the title and precedence normally accorded to the children of an Earl. This is the common way of dealing with it and has been done several times. So, you aren't stuck in a lower position merely because your father predeceased his own father or mother. The same would be done if your father died before he became a Marquess or Duke.

Queen Brandissima - brandy.kelley@gmail.com

[edit] conflict: a rare technicality

I'm curious about this phrase:

If a peer of one of the top three ranks has more than one title, his eldest son, not himself an actual peer, may use one of his father's lesser titles 'by courtesy'.

Does the bolded phrase mean although he is not... or provided he is not...? Example: The Countess Mountbatten's son has already inherited his father's barony (Brabourne), which has seniority over his courtesy barony (Romsey), so he is now styled Lord Brabourne. But suppose Mountbatten's viscountcy did not duplicate the senior title (Earl M. of Burma, Viscount M. of Burma): in that case the son would have been known by that viscountcy – would he be expected to drop it on inheriting the barony? It must happen occasionally that a peer has a courtesy title higher than his substantive title (e.g. by acceleration of a barony), but I don't recall any examples. —Tamfang 03:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

He/She would not be expected to drop the Vicountcy. I've never heard a case where a person was known by a lesser title if they were entitled to something more significant. I would think it is similar to a women who is a Baroness in her own right using her husband's courtesy title of Marquess or Earl (female equiv, of course) instead of using her own lesser title. You are, after all, placed in the order of precedence by your courtesy subsidary title not by the courtesy title you would hold if your father had no other titles (Lord, Lady, Hon.).
Eh? This is the first time I've heard it said that precedence is determined by the courtesy title: I'd have thought that, as eldest sons of dukes, Marquess of Blandford and Earl Grosvenor are on the same level. —Tamfang 17:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
That was my understanding too. At any rate, your scenario has happened. In 1893, the (courtesy) Viscount Drumlanrig was created Lord Kelhead, and from what I gather from that article, he continued to be known as Drumlanrig. There may well be other examples. -- Jao 10:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Indeed: he was described in the London Gazette as "Francis Archibald, Baron Kelhead (commonly called Viscount Drumlanrig)". Other examples come, as predicted in the original question, from accelerated titles: a modern example is the current Marquess of Salisbury, who continued to be known as Viscount Cranborne after being summoned to the Lords as Baron Cecil by writ in acceleration. The only complication I can see arising is this: in Lord Brabourne's case, the substantive Barony he inherited from his father outranks the Barony of Romsey due to its earlier creation (I realise that Lord Brabourne ranks as a Viscount as the eldest son of a Countess, and so his status as "heir to the Earldom of Mountbatten of Burma" is senior to his status as "holder of a Barony in the Peerage of the United Kingdom", but peers seem to go by the seniority of the actual title concerned rather than the position its holder has in the order of precedence in such cases), so it is only natural he "upgraded" to the more senior peerage, but what would happen if the situation were reversed? If the Earl of Arundel and Surrey (heir to the Dukedom of Norfolk, and styled with the Premier Earldom of the Realm) were created Earl of Glossop in the Peerage of the United Kingdom, would he use it, and become "The Rt Hon. The Earl of Glossop", or would he remain simply "The Earl of Arundel and Surrey"? I'm not aware of a precedent for such a situation, but it would be interesting to see what a peer in that position would do. Proteus (Talk) 11:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there any peer whose HA can choose between a Scottish title and a later English title of the same level? If so, which does he use: the more senior, or the one that comes first in precedence? —Tamfang 01:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Not English and Scottish, but the same principle: the courtesy title of the eldest son of the Marquess of Lansdowne alternates between "Earl of Kerry" (Ireland, 1723) and "Earl of Shelburne" (Ireland, 1753) - the newer but more senior title "Earl Wycombe" (Great Britain, 1784) is ignored. Proteus (Talk) 13:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Younger sons of Dukes and Marquesses, and daughters of the same plus Earls

The article currently requires the use of the definite article in "The Lord" and "The Lady" in these cases. However, it seems that there is dispute over this: some authorities require its inclusion, and some require its exclusion. Also, some editors seem to be strongly opposed to this definite article. See discussion at Counter-revolutionary's talk page. As this article is where people go to find out what's right and what's wrong, I hope a solution can be found. -- Jao 14:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

For anyone's information, this issue is now discussed at Talk:Lady Louise Windsor#Surname and definite article. -- Jao 10:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested name change: Courtesy title to British courtesy titles

I note, with some amusement, the pedantic banner on this article that decries that it has too narrow a geographic basis. As if any other country, but the United Kingdom, would bother with this level of utterly fantastic detail to such an otherwise outdated enterprise. Still, there is probably merit in retitling the article to British courtesy titles (or should that be Courtesy titles (British)) and launching a new more generic Courtesy titles article. --Jason Kirk 15:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree (well not about the rather anti-UK comments) but about the proposed move...--Cameron (t|p|c) 10:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I took the liberty of moving the page. --Cameron (t|p|c) 18:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
While I don't disagree with the move itself, perhaps something other than the redirect can now be written at Courtesy title (as per Jmkprime)? Otherwise, we're giving the readers the impression that courtesy titles only exist in the UK, which would indeed make the qualifier redundant. -- Jao (talk) 18:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Quite right ... does anyone know anything about the broader subject? —Tamfang (talk) 07:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eldest sons of Earls without subsidiary titles

User:Counter-revolutionary added a note to the table of titles saying that the eldest son of an Earl uses The Honourable if his father does not have a subsidiary title. I reverted it after checking a few cases (Devon, Guilford, Huntingdon), none of which uses this style (they all use invented courtesy titles instead). I got re-reverted though, and while there might be cases where The Honourable is indeed used (are there?), I feel that the table is quite misleading as it stands. Counter-revolutionary has a valid point however that to be exhaustive, the table should probably mention how these cases are treated. -- Jao (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

In what way did they invent courtesy titles?? Guilford holds the Barony of North; therefore his heir can be Lord North. Some Earls only have Earldoms; therefore his heir can't use any other title, just The Hon. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 22:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll admit that invent is a little strong in the particular case of Lord North (it has been a "true" courtesy title in the past), but if his father does presently hold the Barony of North, then our Baron North article is sadly mistaken. -- Jao (talk) 23:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. We're now into abeyances, and I'd rather not comment on that issue. John Lofthouse will know! --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 23:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Jao is definitely correct. The heir apparent of a duke, marquess or earl may use an "invented" title if there are no subsidiary titles. The information in the Baron North article is also correct, the peerage has been in abeyance since 1941. Tryde (talk) 09:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I never thought wikipedia would teach me something, but I stand corrected. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 09:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
If I remember right, daughters and eldest sons of earls have (simplifying slightly) the precedence of viscounts, while younger sons have that of barons; probably for this reason, I have the impression of having read somewhere or other that earls' eldest sons are entitled to the style Lord William (as their sisters are Lady Margaret) though in practice they never have occasion to use it. —Tamfang (talk) 06:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Not really. If the subsidiary title is just a barony then the eldest son of an Earl can only use the barony, not a viscountcy. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 10:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Please re-read: I said nothing about the courtesy peerage. —Tamfang (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes. It's not correct in any case. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
It is. The eldest sons of Earls rank as Viscounts, regardless of whether they are styled as Viscounts or Barons (what title you use does not affect your position in the order of precedence). (Technically, they rank immediately after Viscounts, and younger sons (and the eldest sons of Viscounts) rank immediately after Barons, which is why the eldest sons of Earls are Lords (they rank above Barons) while the others are not (they rank below Barons).) Proteus (Talk) 13:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Possibly I misremembered this from the fictional Cilfowyr pedigree in Fox-Davies The Art of Heraldry page 363, where the person in question is eldest son of a duke with no subsidiary title. —Tamfang (talk) 07:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The current Earl of Lincoln was styled "The Hon. Edward Fiennes-Clinton" before succeeding his father. That is, as far as I'm aware, the only example of such a style being used by an eldest son of an Earl - previously a courtesy title (whether real or invented) has always been used. (There doesn't appear to have been any real reason for it, either - he couldn't be "Lord Clinton", because the Lord Clinton wouldn't be very happy, but there was nothing to stop him being "Lord Fiennes-Clinton", "Lord Fiennes", or even "Viscount Clinton". Perhaps he just didn't feel like it.) It's probably best not to state it as if it's a rule. Proteus (Talk) 13:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your Grace

Under Divorced wives, the page says:

She is not entitled to the use of the address "Your Grace" (now virtually obsolete) but again by convention, she may be addressed as "Duchess" or "Your Grace".

What does this mean? Is she addressed as "Your Grace"?  Randall Bart   Talk  06:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Not by right, but occasionally by custom. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 09:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)