Who is now the Duke of Edinburgh?

Posted on April 19, 2021April 19, 2021 By Gareth - Editor

Just a quick clarification on the future of the title “the Duke of Edinburgh” because a few folk have been asking.

Philip was created Duke of Edinburgh at the time of his marriage to the then Princess Elizabeth in 1947. He held it for so long and with such distinction, that it’s difficult to envisage anyone else using it.

Nevertheless it is a title with a past and with a future.

When Philip’s youngest son, Prince Edward was married in 1999, it was announced that he would one day receive his father’s title. Edward took on many of his father’s duties including responsibility for the iconic Duke of Edinburgh scheme. Charles may be his mother’s heir. Edward was being lined up to be their father’s.

But Edward cannot really receive the title until Charles is King.

Almost all hereditary peerages (titles like “duke”, “earl” and “baron”) are created for the holder and their “heirs male, lawfully begotten.” Charles, as the eldest son, inherits the dukedom of Edinburgh. To change this would require an act of Parliament. It’s highly unlikely that Parliament will priorities sorting out a royal title over a bill on schools, budgets, hospital or Covid.

Charles could disclaim the title. But it would still be held in reserve for his heirs and could not be easily given to Edward.

So Charles is the duke of Edinburgh. However, it is unlikely that he will ever use the title. He has many titles that most people know nothing of.

When Charles becomes King all his other titles will “merge with the crown.” He can then choose to recreate the dukedom of Edinburgh for Prince Edward, which he has publicly committed to doing.

If – God forbid – something happened to Charles before he became King, the Edinburgh title would be inherited by William.

In theory, the Queen could choose to create a new dukedom of Edinburgh for Edward now. So there would be two dukes of Edinburgh at the same time. It is highly unlikely that she will. It would seem very irregular but as far as I know, there is no law against it. In the 1900s there were two dukedoms of Fife in existence at the same time. Though both were held by the same person.

Subscribe to our newsletter!

5 common ‘Royal title mistakes’ in the British media

Posted on June 19, 2020June 19, 2020 By Gareth - Editor

The rules governing the use of Royal titles are both captivating and convoluted. They have evolved over a thousand years with new protocols created to address specific situations. They are not always logical and even super-cool Royal watchers can struggle to make head and tail of them.

Those hoping to get their head around the practices and protocols, won’t get much help from the popular press. Almost every time a news outlet tries to explain how a title works, they get more wrong than right.

Here’s the top 5 errors I’ve noticed in British media in recent months.

Female-line grandchildren of a monarch do not get Royal titles

1. Princess Anne ‘chose’ not to give her children Royal titles

The use of Royal titles has been strictly governed since 1917. Legal documents regulate the usage of the style of His/Her Royal Highness and the ‘titular dignity’ of Prince or Princess. Under current laws they do not extend to female-line grandchildren of monarchs.

According to ‘letters patent’ issued in 1917 and adapted in 2013, Royal styles go the children of a sovereign, children of sons of a sovereign and the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales.

As such, Anne’s children, Peter and Zara Phillips were never entitled to be a Prince or Princess. It is probable that Anne’s first husband, Mark Phillips was offered an Earldom and that this was refused. Had the couple accepted, Anne’s children would have been styled as the children of an Earl, as Princess Margaret’s offspring were. So it is probable that Anne effectively turned down titles for her children – but not royal titles.

2. Kate and Meghan are not princesses because they are not blood royals

I understand where this comes from. But it’s not quite correct. Under the British system a wife takes her husband’s precedence. She is the feminine version of all her husband’s titles (there are exceptions such as in the Church and the military). So the wife of a Prince is always a Princess.

Under strict court etiquette, is not appropriate to refer to a Princess by marriage as ‘Princess Firstname.’ Catherine is ‘Princess William’ rather than ‘Princess Catherine’. Meghan is ‘Princess Henry’.

Because both their husbands are also Dukes, they are referred to as Duchesses. Whenever an individual is a peer or peeress – royal or not – first names are rarely required. Our future Queen is not ‘Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge’ but simply ‘The Duchess of Cambridge’. This can change in widowhood where it has become customary to combine first names with titles.

Catherine became a Princess the second she married the Duke of Cambridge

3. Diana was made a Princess, but Kate has yet to be so

No. Diana and Catherine both acquired the status of Princess by marriage (see above). No one has actually been ‘made a princess’ since the reign of Edward VII (although special measures were taken to ensure Anne was a Princess ahead of her mother’s ascension).

Despite being popularly referred to as ‘Princess Diana’, the late Princess of Wales was never officially styled as such. When the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge married, the Palace made it clear they were perfectly relaxed about people calling the Duchess ‘Princess Catherine’. But the style is not officially acknowledged at court.

4. William and Harry’s wives were given titles, but Eugenie’s husband was not because she is lower down the line of succession

Royal titles have little to do with place in the succession but much to do with gender.

Under the British system – and indeed most western systems – a wife takes on the style and precedence of her husband. As stated above, the current Duchesses of Cambridge and Sussex acquired their status simply by virtue of marriage. But husbands of titled women derive no style or precedence from their wives. That’s why the Duke of Edinburgh is not known as ‘King.’

In days gone by, untitled men marrying a Princess would be offered a peerage title – typically an Earldom. Their children would thus enjoy aristocratic styles. But those days are gone.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have agreed not to use Royal titles when working commercially

5. The Queen has removed the style ‘HRH’ from Harry and Meghan.

Not quite, though the early communication around this was confusing. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have agreed not to use their Royal styles when conducting commercial work. We are yet to see exactly how they will style themselves on such occasions. My guess is that they will act as if they are untitled and use their peerage title as if it were a surname. So for example, if Meghan stars in a film, she might simply be credited as ‘Meghan Sussex.’

This would be consistent with what other aristocrats and Royals do. The Duchess of Kent styled herself as ‘Mrs Kent’ when working as a music teacher. The Queen’s nephew calls himself ‘David Linley’ when trading. His actual name is David Armstrong-Jones, but until his father died his courtesy title was ‘Viscount Linley.’

Subscribe to our newsletter!

The five different types of ‘Queen’

Posted on May 11, 2020May 12, 2020 By Gareth - Editor

Over on facebook, we Royal History Geeks have been debating our favourite Queens from history. It’s what super-cool people do.

What many people don’t know (and let’s be honest, why should they?) is that in the British system, there are five different types of Queen.

Thought it would be worth a quick post to clarify.

Queen Regnant

When a woman inherits the crown in her own right, she is a ‘Queen Regnant.’ She reigns by right of birth and has the same powers and responsibilities as a King.

In English history there have been six undisputed Queen Regnants: Mary I, Elizabeth I, Mary II, Anne, Vicotria and Elizabeth II.

Scotland has been reigned over by five Queen Regnants – Mary Queen of Scots, Mary II, Anne, Queen Victoria, and the present Queen.

Mary I was the first undisputed Queen Regnant of England

Queen Consort

This is the most common kind of Queen in history. The wife of a King. In the British system, she is ‘Her Majesty the Queen’ and signs ‘R’ for ‘Regina’ after her name – exactly as a Queen Regnant would.

Queen Alexandra was consort to Edward VII

Queen Dowager

A former Queen Consort whose husband is dead. In the British system she is rarely known as ‘Queen Dowager.’ Instead she uses ‘Queen first name’. For example, the widow of George V was known as Her Majesty Queen Mary during the reign of her sons and granddaughter. She is still a Queen. But she is no longer the Queen.

Queen Mother

When a Dowager Queen is the mother of the reigning monarch, they are often informally known as ‘Queen Mother.’ It is rarely an official style. But it was from 1952 – 2002. Because of confusion potentially arising from the presence of two Queen Elizabeths at the same time, the mother of the current Queen officially assumed the style ‘Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother.’ However, servants and those ‘close’ to her referred to her simply as ‘Queen Elizabeth.’

It is important to note, that the mother of monarch cannot be given Queen Mother status is she were never a Queen herself. As such the mothers of Edward IV, Henry VII and Queen Victoria were never styled as ‘Queen Mother’. Though in the case of the first two, they were effectively treated as such.

The widowed Queen Elizabeth officially adopted the title ‘Queen Mother’

Queen Regent

These are rare. If a King were absent for a period of time, he may leave his wife in charge. As such, she would become ‘Queen Regent’ and exercise the Royal prerogative on his behalf.

The style would typically only last a few weeks. Both Katherine of Aragon and Katherine Parr enjoyed this distinction during the reign of Henry VIII.

There are occasions where the arrangement lasts longer. Mary de Guise was Queen Regent of Scotland during the long minority of her daughter.

It is highly unlikely that we will ever see another Queen Regent in the UK. The creation of ‘Councillors of State’ removes the need for short-term regency. Were a regency ever required to deal with an under-age or incapacitated monarch, law dictates that this role should go to the next adult in the line of succession. A Queen Consort could never be that person.

Katherine Parr briefly ruled England as regent

Hope this helps!

So – here’s the question Royal History Geeks: who is your favourite Queen of each type and why?

Subscribe to our newsletter!

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex – it’s in the running but not a done deal!

Posted on December 3, 2017 By Gareth - Editor

Credit: U.S. Marine Corps Photo by Capt. Andrew Bolla

A few years ago – before I even knew the name ‘Meghan Markle’ – I penned a post exploring what titles any future wife of Prince Harry and their children might possess. By some margin, it’s had more hits than anything else I’ve ever written.

In the post, I stated my hunch – and it really was just a hunch – that upon marriage Harry would be created ‘Duke of Sussex’, a title he is rumoured to desire.

Perhaps I have more influence than I think. When the joyous news of the couple’s engagement was released, some media outlets were reporting as near certainty that America’s Meghan Markle would be transformed into Sussex’s Duchess upon marriage.

There are a number of logical reasons for thinking this. Most of the Dukedoms previously used for royalty are occupied and those that remain – such as Clarence – seem too tainted to touch.

But I still think that our popular media has jumped the gun. Let’s look at the other alternatives Her Majesty is presented with:

A new Dukedom could be invented – By tradition, only Dukedoms that have previously been wielded by a Royal are bestowed on a Prince. But it’s only a tradition. Perhaps a new location will be honoured. Duke of London? Duke of Glasgow? All are possible. True, Her Majesty is more traditionalist than innovator – but she broke all the ‘rules’ when she made her third son Earl of Wessex.

Harry could become ‘Duke of York in waiting’ – the monarch’s second son – which Harry will one day be – is traditionally created Duke of York. Clearly this cannot happen while Prince Andrew lives, but it should be noted that he has no son to succeed him. Perhaps Harry could have an Earldom bestowed upon marriage with the promise that he would one day become Duke of York when the title is vacant. This would mirror what happened with Prince Edward who will one day assume the title of Duke of Edinburgh.

Harry might get no title at all – I don’t think this is likely. But as far as I know, no monarch has previously been in the position where he/she needed to give two of grandsons peerages (George V’s brother was dead by the time George was made Duke of York). She might decide that it’s for Charles to dish out his second son’s title when he eventually gets the throne. She was, after all, quite happy to leave two of her cousin’s wives with the clumsy sounding styles of Princess Richard of Gloucester and Princess of Michael of Kent. Perhaps Meghan will simply be HRH Princess Henry of Wales. Stranger things have happened…

For what it’s worth, I still think Dukedom of Sussex is going to be the one that lands. I’ve read rumours that Harry has always wanted it (I have no idea if they’re true) and it seems that Her Majesty does take personal wishes into consideration. But to report it as a done deal – like so much of our media has (and don’t even get me started on the American press) is just continuing the trend of lazy journalism that bombards conversation on these topics.

So much of what I discuss on this site can never be truly known. The great thing about this subject is that it’s only a matter of months before time will tell…

What titles will Harry’s wife and children have?

Posted on February 8, 2016April 5, 2017 By Gareth - Editor

Image: Surtsicna – This file was derived fromPrince Harry Trooping the Colour.JPG:, CC BY-SA 3.0,

As regular readers know, as a historian I see myself as an amateur; but when it comes to questions of Royal titles – ah now that’s quite different. Here I consider myself an expert.

On this subject, people trust my knowledge. On this subject, I often get asked questions – questions I am only too happy to answer. Once question I’ve been asked a bit lately (okay only once. And I was the one that asked it. To myself. Even though I already knew the answer) is “when Prince Harry gets married, what title will his wife received and how will any eventual children of the marriage be styled?”

The answer, as ever, isn’t entirely straightforward. But as I like a challenge, I’ll wade in and answer it, making a few qualifications along the way.

If Prince Harry married NOW and there was no intervention from the Queen…

Than his lucky bride would be known as HRH Princess Henry of Wales.

“SAY WHAAAAT?!” I hear you cry. “That sounds weird at the best of times and who the heck is ‘Henry of Wales.’”

Okay, bear with, bear with. First of all we need to be clear on one thing. Despite the fact he is almost universally known as ‘Harry’ (I believe at his late mother’s request) William’s younger brother is technically called ‘Henry’ and on official documents is styled as such. Thanks to Letters Patent issued by his great-great-grandfather in 1917, as a son of a son of the sovereign he is entitled to the style of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince before his christian name. By custom, he takes the territorial designation from his father’s title (in this case ‘Wales’) and uses it as sort of surname with an ‘of’ in front of it.

In the British system, a wife literally feminises her husband’s style. So the wife of Mr Joe Bloggs is technically Mrs Joe Bloggs rather than Mrs Jane Bloggs, even if the latter is now more common social practice. Hence why Harry’s wife would rather clunkily be ‘HRH Princess Henry of Wales.’

As for the children? Well, let’s just suppose that in the lifetime of the Queen, Harry and his wife have two children and for sake of argument we’ll call them Andrew (after his uncle) and Catherine (after his sister in law). They would be known respectively as Lord Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and Lady Catherine Mountbatten-Windsor.

“Hold the phone!” I can sense you shout out loud as your coffee drops to the floor. “Mountbatten? What’s that about? And why on God’s earth aren’t these two fictitious young Royals a Prince and Princess.”

<Sigh.> I knew it would get to this. Okay, I’ll tell ya.

The Royal family are known as the ‘House and family of Windsor.’ There was some question mark over this when the Queen ascended (married women tend to take their husband’s name and Philip had adopted the surname of Mountbatten in 1947) but the then Prime Minister, Winston Churchill made it crystal clear. However a few years later, the Queen, no doubt wanting to recognise her husband, decreed that her and Philip’s male-line descendants who do NOT bear the style Royal Highness would carry the name ‘Mountbatten-Windsor.’

As far as their lack of Royal titles? The Letters Patent of 1917 (mentioned above) restricted the use of the Royal style so that male line great-grandchildren of a sovereign were no longer entitled to it (with the exception of the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. In fact the Queen had to intervene to ensure that Charlotte was born a Princess). Instead, it made provisions for them to have the same titles as the children of Dukes – the right to prefix their Christian name with the title ‘Lord’ or ‘Lady.’

HOWEVER, when Charles ascends the throne, everything changes. Now, these two offspring would be male-line grandchildren of a sovereign and would be bumped up to HRH with the titular dignity of Prince or Princess. And Harry’s title would change too – he would lose ‘Wales’ and gain the definite article, becoming HRH The Prince Henry, with his wife upgrading to HRH The Princess Henry.

But in reality, there would probably be some intervention from the Queen

When Harry marries he will probably be given a peerage most likely a Dukedom, but potentially an Earldom like Prince Edward. Even if this doesn’t happen on marriage, it is highly likely to take place once Charles ascends. If then he is created (let’s say) ‘Duke of Sussex’ (the title he is rumoured to desire) than it’s good news for his wife. She would then be styled Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex.

It is also possible that a change will be made with the children. Given that they will one day be grandchildren of a sovereign and entitled to the Princely style, the Queen might decide to bring that day forward and give it to them straight away. She has that power.

But more worryingly, there is a third alternative. We hear much talk of Charles wanting to ‘shrink’ the Royal family. While this would be disastrous for Royal watchers like me, there is a chance that he may further restrict HRH to those in direct line of succession – freeing his other descendants from the burden or privilege (depending how you see it) of Royal titles. As such Harry’s children may never be technically considered Royal – although this is entirely speculation.

Well there you go. That was an adventure, wasn’t it? Stay tuned for more super-coolness just around the corner.