Talk:Courtesy titles in the United Kingdom

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 question

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

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