Talk:Courtesy titles in the United Kingdom

Sons of Earls and Viscounts

Why are the children of Viscounts and younger sons of Earls style as "The Honourable" instead of Lords and Ladies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.239.183.11 (talk) 06:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Children of Earls

Why are daughters of Earls called ‘Lady Jane Smith’, but sons of Earls are called ‘The Honourable James Smith’? (except the heir, who is Viscount Something). Every other rank, the kids are either lords and ladies, or all Honourables. 2A00:23C7:E287:1900:44B4:9FB0:E2EB:61A5 (talk) 02:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

Nik42, Jayboy is quite correct. Most physicians hold the title as a courtesy and do not hold PhD equivalent medical doctorates. Even in the U.S. where the degree is called Doctor of Medicine (MD), the prefix Dr could still be regarded as a courtesy title since these degrees are not PhDs and other people, such as lawyers, whose degree may carry the word "doctor" in its name are not normally styled as Dr, i.e. Juris Doctor (JD). 121.73.7.84 (talk) 23:19, 3 July 2010 (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)

A: It is for their descendants because the title Prince is only granted to grandsons of sovereigns outside the senior line of descent. Their sons (who are a sovereign's great-grandsons) inherit the dukedom (and other peerages) but are not entitled to the 'titular dignity' of Prince so they use the traditional courtesy titles the same as other ducal heirs. Thus a younger son of a sovereign has the barony so his grandson will have a courtesy title. And the further descendants will have the secondary titles to use as courtesy titles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CS 1967 (talk • contribs) 04:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

The lesser titles are for use as courtesy titles by their eldest sons and grandsons. The Duke & Duchess of Westminster were never going to have children so there was no point in creating subsidiary titles. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 23:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Eh? Even if it could be predicted with certainty in 1936 that there would be no children, why advertise the point? —Tamfang (talk) 05:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I suspect the royal court didn't care about offending The Duke and Duchess's sensibilities, they may have actually relished the opportunity to do so, much as they did by denying the style HRH. In any case they could always have added subsidiary titles later if necessary. Since Wallis was aged 41 at the time of her marriage to Edward and hadn't had any children to her other husbands it's probably a moot point. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 04:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

To the first two questions: A style like "Prince Richard of Gloucester" is loftier than "Earl of Ulster". But the future third duke is not a Prince, so he uses an ordinary courtesy style. —Tamfang (talk) 05:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the Dukedom of Windsor was created in response to a crisis, not a well thought out solution. 67.176.160.47 (talk) 04:52, 30 August 2010 (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)

Yes, because on the occasion of the wedding George VI gave that rank to the children of the marriage. —Tamfang (talk) 06:00, 8 July 2010 (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)

Sorry to revive this subject, but two points leap to mind: The style Lady is used by a number of women (e.g. wives of knights and baronets, daughters of some peers), not just peeresses. Also, Baroness can be used (and is used, by Hansard?) to indicate a female member of the House of Lords, i.e. a (life) peeress suo jure (in her own right). For example, Baroness Thatcher is Lady Thatcher by virtue of her being a Dowager Baronetess, but is a peeress and member of the House of Lords in her own right. As to why Hansard sticks with Lord for Barons in the House of Lords, I guess it is just tradition. Hfossa (talk) 14:17, 20 May 2011 (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)

It is customary that a person never decline in 'status'. That is why Princess Margaret's daughter born Lady Sarah Armstrong Jones is now know as Lady Sarah Chatto despite her husband having no title. Courtesy titles are not nicknames. In the case of children they are strictly social convention whereas wives' courtesy titles are 'legal rights'. But to answer the question, the daughters of earls, marquesses, and dukes and the younger sons of marquesses and dukes never lose the courtesy title once it is obtained unless 1) they are granted a title in their own right or 2) the daughter marries a man with a title and she then takes 'her station' from her husband. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CS 1967 (talk • contribs) 04:02, 27 January 2018 (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)

Mcferran is probably right. As I understand it, in British law a wife holds the same rank and precedence as her husband. So it is confusing because her title would be neither substantive nor a courtesy. This is just one of those messy grey areas where you need to be a specialsit lawyer to work it out. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 23:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The wife of a peer holds the consort title by courtesy but as a spouse she has a 'legal right' to use the consort courtesy title unlike children whose courtesy titles are simply by social convention. This is why ex wives of peers continue to use it but have their given name preceding the title instead of the definitive article "The". Sarah Duchess of York instead of The Duchess of York for example. Previously an ex wife could continue to use the title after remarriage although that practice has fallen out of use in recent decades. But the wives are not peeress in their own right so the use of the title is by courtesy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CS 1967 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 27 January 2018 (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.

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

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)

The heirs of younger sons of a sovereign traditionally use their father's territorial designation and are entitled to the 'titular dignity of Prince or Princess. So when born, the current Duke of Kent was know as HRH Prince Edward of Kent for example. Technically he could have used the courtesy title of Earl of St Andrews but had no need to do so because calling him Prince Edward of Kent, Earl of St Andrews was cumbersome and unnecessary since the reason for using a courtesy title is to give the heir "station" and his titular dignity of Prince already gave him higher station. The dukes you mentioned are actually grandsons of a sovereign not younger sons. As previously noted the sons of current Dukes of Kent & Gloucester as great-grandsons of a sovereign not in the senior line of descent are not entitled to the 'titular dignity' of Prince so The Hon George Windsor who uses the courtesy title of Earl of St Andrews will be His Grace The Duke of Kent when he inherits his father's dukedom not His Royal Highness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CS 1967 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 27 January 2018 (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.

The answers to the original questions are

1) Option #2 is correct, if the person allowed to use it desires to do so. The actual title holder cannot disinherit his heir apparent (the only people entitled to use courtesy titles are the heir apparent and/or heir apparent's heir apparent) from succeeding the title and therefore cannot block the use of the courtesy title. Peers do not decide which courtesy title their heir uses for the most part. It is family tradition that The Marquess of Londonderry's heir apparent use Viscount Castlereagh. If an heir apparent stated using Earl of Vane instead there really isn't anyone who could stop him as it is technically correct for him to do so.

2) Princes do not use courtesy titles because the 'titular dignity' of Prince is higher than any secondary peerage. Also part of the reason younger sons of sovereign are given dukedoms is to distinguish them among the princes who have the same first name (there are two Prince Edwards for example). Their sons (who are grandsons of a sovereign) then use their father's territorial designation to identify them among other Princes with the same name and show how they 'fit' in the line of succession. The whole odd situation with The Prince Edward The Earl of Wessex having his son called Viscount Severn instead of Prince James of Wessex as he should have been confuses the issue.

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 definiite 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)

The immediately above is meaningful for the heir apparent to a substantive title (and their heir apparent, and so on) when they are born, since there can only be one, so it is unique. In other words, there will at most one Earl Arundel or Marquess of Hartington. Something similar can be said for a widow of a title holder, e.g. The Dowager Duchess of Marlborough. The same cannot be said for the potentially several younger sons of a Duke or Marquess, or an Earl's potentially many daughters. I am not sure what Burke, Debretts or Buckingham Palace say on this subject, but Diana was never known as The Lady Diana Spencer. Even if the Duke of Marlborough has only two sons, his younger son would not be known as the The Lord..., either. Agreed? Hfossa (talk) 12:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

No. The sources that allow/mandate "the Earl of X" (such as Debrett's and the Court Circular) also allow/mandate "the Lord John X" and "the Lady Mary X". I agree that it's odd (there could be lots of Lords John Smith, and so calling all of them the Lord John Smith is a bit strange) but that seems to be the way it works. (On the other hand, linguistically speaking, the same could be same of "the Hon. John Smith", which no one would argue with.) Proteus (Talk) 12:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, Proteus: Debrett's section on courtesy titles seems to contradict the above, and mandate (allow only) "Lord" for the younger sons of a duke. Similar statements apply to sons and daughters of other Marquesses and Earls. Do you have a source for your Court Circular statement? I suspect there is a difference here also between capitalising the article, so "The Lord Edward" is different from "the Lord Edward". Hfossa (talk) 14:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Their publication Correct Form provides for the definite article. See also such People of Today entries as The Lady Mary Holborow. The Court Circular is searchable, and generally includes the definite article (including for the aforementioned Lady Mary Holborow, and also, e.g., the Lady Louise (Mountbatten-)Windsor). Capitalisation is a bit haphazard, but nowadays it's becoming usual to have it in lowercase for everyone unless it's at the beginning of a sentence or of a line (so "The Rt Hon. the Lord X" rather than "The Rt Hon. The Lord X"). Proteus (Talk) 15:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, I concede, since I see that the British Royal Family (or British Monarchy) web site uses "The Lord Frederick Windsor" in the Line of Succession. To be fair to myself, as (the) Lord Frederick is not the son of a peer, it is not a counter-example and merely highlights that there are no clear rules, it seems. Hfossa (talk) 15:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, which I why it's appropriate that it remain in brackets. All we can say is that sources (including some pretty authoritative sources) differ, as it's not for us to determine which are correct. Proteus (Talk) 17:02, 18 May 2011 (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)

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)

Henry II and his sons Richard and John used the title Duke of Aquitaine in the right of Eleanor 98.206.155.53 (talk) 08:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

After thinking about it, I realized they were not only using the title, but ruling Aquitaine. correct me if I am wrong, but a husband does not get a courtesy title, rather husbands were the peer jure uxoris, and would exercise the privilege as such. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 08:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. The situation in the mediaeval period was different in many respects to the situation now. For instance, widowed peeresses used to be entitled to (and generally did) maintain their styles upon remarriage to a lower ranking man (so the Dowager Duchess of X would continue to call herself that even after marrying the Earl of Y). This is now not allowed (although sometimes it is done). And of course, back when an Earldom (or higher title) denoted real political power, it was necessary for someone to exercise that power when it was held by a woman. Proteus (Talk) 10:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I've read that in Scotland it was formerly customary for a peeress's husband to be granted duplicates of her titles, for life only. —Tamfang (talk) 18:36, 5 February 2020 (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)

Courtesy titles are used by the heir apparent, since it is a life peerage there is no heir whatsoever. So yes it is because their peerage has no heir by definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CS 1967 (talk • contribs) 04:58, 27 January 2018 (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 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)

All daughters of earls, marquesses, and dukes regardless of whether married or not have use of courtesy titles of "Lady". A person does not descend from the highest station they achieve so if they marry and their husband does not have a title, they continue (or can) to use the courtesy title. Princess Margaret's daughter for example was by courtesy Lady Sarah Armstrong Jones because her father held an earldom. Her husband has no title but she is properly now known as Lady Sarah Chatto still using "Lady" by courtesy as the daughter of an earl. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CS 1967 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

This does not yet seem to be addressed. Could someone knowledgeable please do so? The reference to Sir Elton John implies that the wife of a Knight is called Lady in the reference but not in the body. Verne Equinox (talk) 00:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

This seems to be covered at Forms of address in the United Kingdom. Courtesy titles are used by the relatives of peers not knights. See for example the definition of courtesy title in the Oxford English Dictionary. DrKay (talk) 08:38, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

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." DrKay 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)

"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)

I think the correct statement is that if an heir apparent dies, the courtesy titles pass to the new heir apparent, which could be the deceased man's eldest son or brother, in that order, depending on whether he has one. A wider but somewhat theoretical question arises if his widow is pregnant at the time of the childless Lord's death. Hfossa (talk) 08:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

Here is a related (arguably opposite) question: what happens if the widow of a title holder without sons/heirs is pregnant at the time of his death? As a made-up example, if the Duke of London dies, but the Duchess is pregnant, does the title automatically pass to the next in line, e.g. a younger brother, or is there an interregnum until the child is born (or not), and it is known whether it is a boy, say? If the title passes to the next in line, does it "revert" to an heir to to the late title holder once born? I suppose I am asking for known examples of this happening in history. Hfossa (talk) 10:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

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)

The Duke of Buccleuch is Earl of Doncaster in England and Earl of Dalkeith in Scotland. The traditional courtesy title is Earl of Dalkeith - presumably because, before 1963, Earl of Doncaster was the title by which he sat in the House of Lords. Similarly, the heirs of the Marquess of Londonderry are Viscount Castlereagh, even though the marquess is also Earl Vane. I think that HAs to holders of Scottish and Irish peerages almost never use English or British titles as courtesy titles, because those titles were used by the peer himself to sit in the Lords. john k (talk) 04:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it depends on the situation. An substantive Baron and courtesy Viscount, might be known as Viscount socially, but in Parliament, he would be a Baron. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 08:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

So, with the Earl of Lincoln, the current Earl is the Earl of Lincoln, his son the Honorable [full name] as the heir apparent. What would say his brother or the heir apparent's son be called or is there no title for the heir presumptive? Is there a set of titles if there are several generations alive at once? 71.234.43.195 (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

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)

Younger

This new passage is not as clear as it might be:

A form of courtesy title granted is the prefix of "Younger" at the end of the name. This title is granted to the Heir Apparent of a Laird (Lord) and is placed at the end of his or her name (example - Mr John Smith of Edinburgh, Younger). The wife of a Younger may herself place the title at the end of her name. The holder is addressed as the younger (example - The Younger of Edinburgh).

The word "granted" implies that it's not automatic, but specially created for each holder. Is that accurate? Do Mr Forename Surname of Estate, Younger and The Younger of Estate mean the same person, or is the latter his wife? Does the word "addressed" refer to the form used e.g. in mail, or would one say "good morning, The Younger of Estate"? —Tamfang (talk) 20:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly not granted and regranted. As to usage it's hard to demonstrate/cite but I'd doubt any widespread spoken use continues AllsoulsDay (talk) 12:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

adoption and legitimation

Pursuant to a Royal Warrant dated 30 April 2004, adopted children are now automatically entitled to the same styles and courtesy titles as their siblings. However, like legitimated children, they cannot inherit peerages from an adopting parent.

Does "the same" mean an adopted eldest son can have a courtesy peerage, which he continues to bear after his brother inherits the substantive titles? —Tamfang (talk) 01:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

No. An adopted son can only ever bear the style of a younger legitimate son. (The styles generally attributed to "eldest sons" are in fact those held by "heirs apparent", since heirs apparent can use courtesy titles even if not the eldest son (e.g. George, Viscount Seaham (later 5th Marquess of Londonderry), heir apparent to his father's Earldom of Vane but not his eldest son).) Proteus (Talk) 21:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

other countries

do other countries, and have they ever used courtesy titles? 98.206.155.53 (talk) 08:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it seems no one here knows. —Tamfang (talk) 20:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, some certainly do, although it varies considerably from country to country. In Germany, children generally used the main title with the addition of a first name (X, the son of the Graf von Y, will be Graf X von Y); nowadays the title is legally a surname, but the previous usage survives socially. In Italy, the situation is very confusing, as there were different usages depending on which of the states of Italy the title came from, but in an extremely rough analogy "Don" and "Donna" were the equivalent of "Lord" and "Lady" held by the younger sons and daughters of senior peers, and "Nobile" (used as "Nobile X dei Conti Y" or what not) was the equivalent of "The Honourable" for the children of junior peers. I believe that, in France and Spain, a situation somewhat similar to the use of courtesy peerages exists, with the eldest son bearing a lesser title of nobility rather than purely an honorific. It's debatable whether these could really be described as "courtesy" titles, though, as in many cases they were held by law and not just by courtesy. Proteus (Talk) 10:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

well, in the german tradition, as well as other, more than one person could inherit the title, which makes it a different system entirely. However, in France and Spain, they have a similar system to the British one. I have seen the term used in reference to these titles, yet courtesy title links here. perhaps it should have its own article? 98.206.155.53 (talk) 21:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

There were, in Germany, positions that can only be filled by one person, so, one person was "Elector of the Palatinate", but as he had one voice in the Electors' College and not several, his descendants and other family members could not share the same title, and so were, all of them, called with the original title of the Elector of the Palatinate, viz., "Count Palatine by Rhine". Some ducal houses reserved the phrase "Duke of" to the head of the family calling the other members "Duke in". Positions from Grand Duke onwards, as well as "Fürst" (=reigning prince), were unique, and the family members would be mere styled "Prince", or in case of the House of Habsburg(-Lorraine) also "Archduke", as sometimes were members of ducal houses. But the basic point is correct: In Germany, "peerage" (called "high nobility") automatically decends from the father to all legitimate non-morganatic descendants (the "limit" to the number of peers was taken care of by the "non-morganatic" part of it).--2001:A61:20CF:E201:AD5C:7A0E:1185:1E26 (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

While I concur with most of the above comment about German titles (except that only the titles of emperor, king, elector and grand duke descended exclusively by male primogeniture: ducal, princely, comital and baronial titles usually descended by right to all male-line family members except in post-18th century Prussia, although in reigning dynasties only the sovereign actually bore the unique version of that title, as in Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and Liechtenstein), but the use of the term peerage confuses matters. The continental equivalent of British peers were not the "high nobility (Hochadel), but titled nobles who held hereditary seats in the Herrenhaus of the realm in which they officially resided. The effective translation into English for Hochadel is "royalty" or "dynasties", i.e. the families which by the 19th century exercised sovereign or semi-sovereign rights in their territories. These families were recognized as entitled to "equality of birth" (Ebenbürtgkeit, i.e. royal intermarriage) with ruling families. The reason that the marriages of such royals as Prince Augustus Frederick, Duke of Sussex, Prince Edward of Saxe-Weimar and Prince Victor of Hohenlohe-Langenburg to daughters of peerage families were not approved to transmit the fathers' princely rank to the children was that their brides were not deemed of equivalent status to, e.g., the princesses of Brunswick, Saxe-Coburg-Gotha or Waldeck and Pyrmont who dynastically married into the British royal family. Those families deemed Hochadel were listed in the first and second sections of the Almanach de Gotha until 1944, whereas the princely families of the ordinary German and Austrian nobility were listed with British dukes in the third section. To get an idea of the difference in rank then widely accepted between British peers and Hochadel, consider that the children of Prince Victor Hohenlohe, although morganauts who in Germany were mere countesses and in Britain prefixed "Lord/Lady", were granted precedence at the British court in 1913 above all peers except dukes. FactStraight (talk) 20:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

royalty

Royalty seems to ignore these rules and play by their own. For example: Prince William though both the son and grandson of a duke, both who have subsidiary titles, uses neither. Also, it seems that other princes do not use courtesy titles along with their princely title. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 04:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

That's true; evidently Prince N is considered a higher title than Earl of Z. —Tamfang (talk) 08:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Princes never use courtesy peerages. Being a Prince is higher in status than being a courtesy peer, but, evidently, not than being a substantive peer. DBD 11:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Princes are above the Peerage; royal dukes ("Dukes of the Blood Royal") form a class of their own, as it were, with special precedence. Besides, it's always obvious which dukes are royal: they use the princely style His Royal Highness rather than the ducal style His Grace, and when their name is used it is always preceded by Prince ("Prince William, Duke of Cambridge" as opposed to "Edward, Duke of Norfolk"). I believe they also don't use numerals. Waltham, The Duke of 11:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

There are a few things that make Prince William a bad example. Namely he holds a dukedom in his own right so that takes precedence before any courtesy titles he could use.

But the important thing to remember is the purpose of using a courtesy title is to give someone station when they other wise would have none. The heirs (and all children) of ordinary peers are commoners. To give them station, the heir apparent is allow by courtesy to use the father/grandfather's secondary tiles. A Prince of the Blood Royal doesn't need to obtain station, their 'titular dignity' of Prince gives it to them already.

The reasons sons of sovereigns are given dukedoms (peerages) is to distinguish them from other princes having the same first name and to give the heirs of the lines of descent, other than the senior one, titles to pass down. Their children who are also princes(ses) use their father's territorial designation to show line of descent and distinguish them from others with the same first name. There technically is no such thing as a royal dukedom, it is simply a dukedom held by a Prince of the Blood Royal. So it isn't Dukes of the Blood Royal, it is Princes of the Blood Royal who hold dukedoms. The dukedom isn't different, the current holder is. They take their precedence and style from their princely station not their ducal one. This is clearly demonstrated by the current Dukes Of Gloucester & Kent, as male line grandsons of a sovereign, they are princes and therefore addressed Royal Highness. However their eldest sons being great-grandsons of a sovereign not in the senior line are not entitled to the titular dignity of prince or the style Royal Highness. When either of them (Alexander Windsor or George Windsor) inherits their father's dukedom, the dukedom won't change but the new Duke of Gloucester or Kent will be addressed Your Grace not Royal Highness and the holder will take precedence according to the dukedom's creation. The current Dukes of Gloucester & Kent take precedence before The Duke of Norfolk because they are princes of the blood not because their dukedoms 'outrank' his.

Revived article

This section has been moved to Talk:Courtesy title, which was previously a redirect to this page.

In the above discussion about the page move, it seemed agreed that no-one knew enough about Courtesy titles in non-UK context to be able to write an article. I think the current stub confirms this, tangling two distinct dictionary definitions to arrive at the inclusion of "Dr." as a courtesy title used without any legal status. PamD (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Pam, see the MIT style guide: "Courtesy titles include Mr., Mrs., Ms., and Dr." I think the idea is that titles such as Dr. are customarily given to medical doctors and often other types of holders of doctorates as a mark of respect and courtesy (i.e., are courtesy titles), while letters such as M.D., D.V.M., etc. signify that a degree has been accorded (i.e., have "legal" or official status). There's a whole article on it, Doctor (title), which touches a bit on uses of the title in social contexts. The MIT guide is not quite as informative as one would like, but its statement seems fairly straightforward. Neutrality^talk 21:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

If you are looking for references, several institutional style guides explicitly refer to the title as a courtesy title: SUNY Buffalo; UNC; Miami, Wisconsin, and many others; the Toledo Blade refers to Dr. as a courtesy title; the New Zealand Veterinary Association refers to use of Dr. by vets as a courtesy title several times; and over the course of a controversy over use of Dr. by British dentists, the title is referred to as a courtesy title several times, including in reputable publications such as Nature. Several books also refer to Dr. as a courtesy title, including several business communications/professional writing handbooks: p. 144, p. 159 and writing guides p. 29, p. 235. Neutrality^talk 22:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Children of courtesy peers

I understand that courtesy peers derive their precedence from being the eldest sons of their fathers, rather than from the rank of their courtesy titles. What about their children, however? It seems unlikely that the children of a courtesy earl would not even be Honourables, and even more unlikely that a duke's grandson with a courtesy barony would derive no precedence from it. After all, "Eldest Sons of the Younger Sons of Peers" are mentioned near the end of the table of precedence (right above the eldest sons of baronets), so the sons of the eldest sons of peers must be covered somewhere above, yet they are not mentioned at all in the table. If their styles and precedence are rank-related, then is that precedence based on the seniority of the courtesy title or do the courtesy peer's children come after all the children of substantive peers of the same rank? Waltham, The Duke of 11:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Dowagers

I have clarified the section on dowager peeress; but is it so? If the Duke of London dies, leaving a wife and only daughter, and the daughter inherits (a special remainder in the patent, or some such thing), the daughter would be Duchess of London; compare Henrietta, Duchess of Marlborough. Is her mother also Mary, Duchess of London? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The mother is officially the Dowager D of L in the normal fashion Garlicplanting (talk) 14:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Question

Are Viscounts and Barons allowed to have courtesy titles ? Or are these only restricted to top 3 ranks of peerage ?

(talk) 11:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

They are restricted to these three ranks (see the list of titles). Courtesy titles need to be of a lower rank than substantive titles, and sons of barons obviously cannot be courtesy barons themselves. Although there would be no such conflict in the case of eldest sons of viscounts, they have traditionally not used courtesy titles, either. As I interpret it (though I could be wrong), that's because their place in the order of precedence (which is not affected by courtesy titles) is relatively low, namely below that of barons, and does not justify the style of "Lord", so they are mere "Honourables". Waltham, The Duke of 15:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Difficult Question

If an Earls daughter marries his heir (say for example he is her cousin) and has a son. Then the heir dies leaving his son as the heir to the Earldom. When the grandson becomes Earl, what would his mothers title be. Because she is Lady (First Name) when her father is the Earl but when her son becomes Earl she cannot be a Dowager Countess because she was never a Countess in the first place. -- unsigned

The windowed woman would retain the highest style, and possibly a title, that would be hers depending on the station of her deceased husband. See the section in the article for married daughters to determine what her style (and possible title) might be. If her husband (the heir) was a peer himself, she would even become a dowager according to her deceased husband's title. --L.Smithfield (talk) 13:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Clearly you are referring to Downton Abbey, she would retain courtesy use of "Lady" as the daughter of an earl for her life not her father's. The daughters of deceased earls do not lose their courtesy titles. In the Downton Abbey scenario where the late husband held no title by right or courtesy, Lady Mary would remain Lady Mary when her son inherited the earldom from his grandfather.

the Queen

When the Queen married, she became the Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh etc., as her husband was and is the Duke of Edinburgh. Now I know when she ascended the throne, she became the font of honour and all that. I know that. But the titles she held as Duchess of Edinburgh, Countess of Merioneth and Baroness Greenwich aren't her's; they're courtesy titles in right of the Duke of Edinburgh as his consort. According to Royal Forums, she remains the Duchess of Edinburgh, b/c those titles are her's by courtesy. Or does this not apply and if so, why? 74.69.9.224 (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The wife of HRH the Duke of Edinburgh is entitled to use the titles you've mentioned. The monarch of the UK, however, does not use inferior titles conferred by grants of the British Crown, since that would imply that she "holds" honours from herself (i.e., that the "suzerain" Queen of the UK bears an honour {Duchess of Edinburgh} that the suzerain {or her predecessor} granted to a "vassal"). What she could have done as queen is add the style/title "HRH Princess Phillip of Greece and Denmark" to her regnal titles, since that style does not emanate from the British fount of honour, but her husband renounced/forfeited that style & title when he accepted British citizenship prior to marriage. If she abdicated and moved outside the Commonwealth Realms, she could properly make use of both her husband's British & non-British titles, provided that her successor did not formally object (as did George VI to the use of HRH for Wallis Simpson after she married the Duke of Windsor). FactStraight (talk) 23:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying. But my question is does Elizabeth II still hold those titles? Obviously she will never use them, as they are inferior in right to her rights as Sovereign. But because they are titles by courtesy of her husband, they aren't her's, but her husband's. If the Duke precedes the Queen in death, she will become the Dowager Duchess of Edinburgh and the Prince of Wales will add the titles to his own, with Camilla becoming Duchess of Edinburgh. I believe it's the difference between a substantive and a courtesy title. 74.69.9.224 (talk) 15:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

No, no monarch can hold a title from the crown. Wives of peers hold the title as legally as though it was their own creation (save prior parliamentary rights) so are still not available. Wives titles are not 'courtesy' but in law. Garlicplanting (talk) 12:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually the consort titles held by a wife are by courtesy, although they have a legal right to use them (by courtesy). Courtesy titles are to give someone "station" or standing or precedence. There is no higher station or standing or precedence than the sovereign so The Queen does not use any courtesy/consort titles but they do exist in theory.

Using a self-published source

I received a comment about my 2013 November 8 edit, where I added what I recognize is a self-published source to the External links section. Because self-published sources are generally unacceptable as citation sources, I added this comment right on the page: "This is an individual's personal web site, but it includes a thorough bibliography."

I had looked through the author's bibliography, and I found her documentation looks better than a lot of editorially-published sources, and her research is considerably more extensive than the current Wikipedia page. I wrote to the author to whether she was able to expand the Wikipedia page to match the extent of her page – or whether she was willing to grant permission to copy her research to the page – in either case adapting the tone to that of an encyclopedia. As I guessed, she didn't have the energy for the former, and as is her right, she declined the latter.

I didn't have time myself to adapt her research onto the page in a way that didn't plagiarize her work, so I thought the best compromise was to place the self-published source in the "External links" section to make it easy to find both for editors who might want to use it to expand this page, and for users who want more information on the topic.

—Steve98052 (talk) 02:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Well it was my comment and I stand by it. That a SPS has footnotes is not a guarantee that they are accurate or indeed that even where accurate they are up to date. (I have nothing against the site personally)Garlicplanting (talk) 12:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The impact of equal marriage.

The article currently states that if "a peer or knight enters into a civil partnership, his or her partner is not entitled to a courtesy title." Does anybody know whether the introduction of equal marriage through the coming into force of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 is likely to change this?A Chuisle Mo Chroí (talk) 18:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The act doesn't seem to mention anything on this point, judging from the fairly detailed list of provisions in the Wikipedia article. I also know that I haven't heard anything about such a change to the law; it would be controversial, judging from other suggestions for equality to titles, and it would be bound to receive some publicity (as did the Equality (Titles) Bill, to furnish a recent example, though I don't know why we have an article on it).

Besides, any change to the system would have to be explicit rather than implicit, because of the importance of details in this kind of thing. There is no natural answer, for instance, to the question of what title a man's husband might plausibly use, which would be different from the substantive title originally granted; whatever the solution to the riddle, if and when it comes, it will be creating precedent rather than conforming to it. The aforementioned bill went with using "The Honourable" for husbands and civil partners, and it seems as reasonable an idea as any, but you never know... Waltham, The Duke of 08:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Tricky question?

I haven't quite been able to get my head around these two hypothetical situations. Firstly, suppose John Smith was adopted at birth. For whatever reason his (legally married) parents gave him up for adoption. His father is distantly in line to inherit a title. At some point, John Smith finds out who his parents are. Is he back in the line of succession? And further to that scenario, suppose his birth name is Smith but his adoptive surname is Jones. Upon inheriting the Earldom of London, is he Lord John Smith or Lord John Jones? My guesses are that he is legally still able to inherit the title, and his surname is up to him. As for the second scenario: suppose Mr John Smith, the heir to a distant cousin's title, had an ex-wive, or maybe even two or three, and children from those marriages. Maybe he's onto his third or fourth marriage now. I can easily see his current wife becoming Duchess of London upon his inheriting the title, and I can obviously see his children from previous marriages becoming styled Lords and Ladies. But are all his ex-wives also styled Duchess of London for life too? To be clear, he wasn't an Honourable or a Lord when he married them years before, let alone a Duke. My guess from the article is that they would be styled as such. Thanks! JamKaftan (talk) 02:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

"Firstly, suppose John Smith was adopted at birth. For whatever reason his (legally married) parents gave him up for adoption. His father is distantly in line to inherit a title. At some point, John Smith finds out who his parents are. Is he back in the line of succession?" He was never out of it. Succession rights to a title cannot be lost by adoption.

"And further to that scenario, suppose his birth name is Smith but his adoptive surname is Jones. Upon inheriting the Earldom of London, is he Lord John Smith or Lord John Jones?" Neither - he is "the Earl of London" or (less formally) "Lord London". ("Lord John Smith" would be the younger son of a duke or marquess.) What surname a person uses is entirely up to them.

"As for the second scenario: suppose Mr John Smith, the heir to a distant cousin's title, had an ex-wive, or maybe even two or three, and children from those marriages. Maybe he's onto his third or fourth marriage now. I can easily see his current wife becoming Duchess of London upon his inheriting the title, and I can obviously see his children from previous marriages becoming styled Lords and Ladies. But are all his ex-wives also styled Duchess of London for life too? To be clear, he wasn't an Honourable or a Lord when he married them years before, let alone a Duke." No, ex-wives do not acquire titles as a result of their ex-husbands doing so. Their titles are based on the highest title held by their (most recent) ex-husband during their marriage. Proteus (Talk) 12:38, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! JamKaftan (talk) 08:31, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Chiropractors using 'Dr' as a courtesy title

At present the page says "[Another organisation] also allows the use of "Doctor" as a courtesy title by its members, as does the General Chiropractic Council for registered chiropractors." This claim has been incorrectly supported by a reference you can find at here. The reference does not support the claim: it actually says that in general, chiropractors should not advertise themselves as 'doctors', and chiropractors who have university doctorates, e.g. Doctor of Chiropractic, should write these out in full.

I will remove the claim. I don't think this is contentious, but please feel free to discuss this here if you feel it is.

The Parson's Cat (talk) 18:48, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Esquire

I am surprised not to see Esquire as a courtesy title within this article. I remember from my youth a clear definition of the title, placing it between Knight and Gentleman. This can be found in other threads of Wikipedia, but not the table which lists the qualifications for the title. That table granted me the title as the Eldest Son of a Younger Son of an Earl, a rank briefly referred to in the above Talk item 33 "Children of courtesy peers". I remember that I qualified again when granted the Queen's Commission and would have qualified again if, for instance, I should have become a Justice of the Peace. In the wikipedia topic "Order of precedence in England and Wales" there is a group of "lower ranks, including Esquires and Gentlemen" but the Esquires are not there distinguished from the others. Is there a contributor to this site who can recover the formal facts of this rank from the diffused modern usage and give Esquire its due place among (OK, after) the other courtesy titles ? Rupert Butler (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

It does have its own article but could certainly be included here. Garlicplanting (talk) 13:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Please help me sort this out.

I think this is true, but I hope to receive confirmation from you all. Let's say a grandfather is an earl and his son holds the courtesy title of baron. The baron also has a son. If the baron predeceases the earl, would the grandson then be entitled to the baron courtesy title? Many thanks for your assistance with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:BFC0:21:1432:4CB9:846A:C1B8 (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes. For example the Earl of Derby skipped a generation between the 17th and 18th Earls. The 18th Earl had the courtesy title from his father's death in 1938 until his grandfather's in 1948. Timrollpickering 09:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so very much for the reply. 2605:A000:BFC0:21:1432:4CB9:846A:C1B8 (talk) 22:15, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

If Lord Subtitle dies before succeeding to the main title, the new heir apparent sometimes adopts a different subsidiary title if possible. —Tamfang (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Baron’s HA?

A baron can have two baronies, held separately. He is known by the more senior barony, and the other one is a subsidiary title. Can the eldest son of a baron use Lord X instead of The Hon. Mr. Name Surname since there is a more minor title he may be able to use as a courtesy title? Note that these are not two peerages in the case of a baron such as Lord X and Y, but rather they are a barony of X and a barony of Y granted separately and inherited by chance by one person. Can his son use Lord Y if it is of lower precedence (created later)? Is this a matter of choice for this eldest son whether or not to use the title?

Thanks! Ngutip1 (talk) 23:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

No. Only eldest sons of dukes, marquesses and earls can use courtesy titles in this way. DrKay (talk) 07:11, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Not quite. Courtesy peerage titles belong to the heir apparent, in the above examples,which is nearly always the eldest son.Garlicplanting (talk) 09:42, 3 October 2018 (UTC).

It's also not true of higher lords: the heir apparent to the dukedoms of Buccleuch and Queensberry, for example, is known as Earl of Dalkeith, not by the younger of the dukedoms. —Tamfang (talk) 17:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

marriage, which is an Hon. estate

The daughter of a viscount or baron who marries a commoner is styled "The Honourable [Given name] [Husband's surname]" (the given name is dropped and Mrs is substituted if the husband's right to the style derives from office or appointment rather than from ancestral peerage).

The parenthesis is confusing because up to that point the scenario did not assume that the husband has such a style. Is it saying that Hon. Janet Something becomes Hon. Mrs Blank if her husband is a political Hon., but Hon. Janet Blank if her husband is untitled? Or was the parenthesis transplanted from an unrelated passage? —Tamfang (talk) 18:24, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Married Daughters

The second sentence of the first paragraph of 'Married Daughters' does not make obvious sense - it's talking about someone marrying a commoner, and about her husband's right to 'the style', but what style? Mdrb55 (talk) 23:17, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

What if there's a higher non hereditary peerage, and lower hereditary ones?

Prince Edward the Earl of Wessex was elevated to the Duke of Edinburgh, but only as a non-hereditary life appointment, and it's being reported that his heir apparent upgraded from the courtesy title Viscount Severn to Earl of Wessex, but if he's not in line to inherit the higher dukedom, wouldn't he need a Writ of acceleration to use the Earl of Wessex title? How does it work here? On a potentially related note, I also see that the above question about children of life peers was never definitively answered. Gecko G (talk) 01:39, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I wonder whether there's any precedent. The only previous life peerages higher than Baron that come to mind are two dukedoms for royal mistresses, who had no legitimate sons to get courtesy titles! When Edward dies it will be weird to read "James, Earl of Wessex, succeeds his father as Earl of Wessex". —Tamfang (talk) 19:09, 12 March 2023 (UTC)