Talk:Courtesy titles in the United Kingdom

message: 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)
thread_title: Sons of Earls and Viscounts

message: 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)
thread_title: Children of Earls

message: 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)
thread_title: Non-peerage courtesy titles

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Princes & Courtesy titles

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Some cases

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I stand corrected. -- Popsracer 02:44, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  A question 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Yeah, that's what I thought.  You should go ahead and do it. john k 05:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wives of peers 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Scottish titles 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Husbands? 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  A question 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A question 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Legitimated children 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Knights and Dames 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  wives, ex-wives and widows of "styled" persons 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  grandchildren of Dukes and Marquesses by younger sons 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  children having died before peerage of parents 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Younger sons of Dukes and Marquesses, and daughters of the same plus Earls 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I took the liberty of moving the page. --Cameron (t|p|c) 18:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Quite right ... does anyone know anything about the broader subject? —Tamfang (talk) 07:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested name change: Courtesy title to British courtesy titles

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I never thought wikipedia would teach me something, but I stand  corrected. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 09:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Please re-read: I said nothing about the courtesy peerage. —Tamfang (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. It's not correct in any case. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Eldest sons of Earls without subsidiary titles 

message: 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)
replies: text: Not by right, but occasionally by custom. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 09:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Your Grace 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Younger 

message: : 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  adoption and legitimation 

message: do other countries, and have they ever used courtesy titles? 98.206.155.53 (talk) 08:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, it seems no one here knows. —Tamfang (talk) 20:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  other countries 

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

message: </strike>
::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)
replies: text: 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. Neutralitytalk 21:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Neutralitytalk 22:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revived article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Children of courtesy peers 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Question 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  the Queen 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Using a self-published source 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Chiropractors using 'Dr' as a courtesy title 

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

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Please help me sort this out. 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Baron’s HA? 

message: :
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)
thread_title:  marriage, which is an Hon. estate 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Married Daughters 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  What if there's a higher non hereditary peerage, and lower hereditary ones? 

message: I was hoping to find some account of the history of courtesy titles, but I don't see much, if anything, relevant in the present article.  In the OED the first citation for the term 'courtesy title' itself is from the 1840s.  I suspect that the use of courtesy titles in England doesn't go back much before 1800, at least in its present elaborate form, but I am willing to be corrected.  The 1839 edition of Debrett's Peerage gives a list of 'Titles generally borne by peers' eldest sons', but that seems to be about it.2A00:23C5:6492:8D01:556A:9E44:EA94:B52D (talk) 17:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: To answer my own question, I find that John Selden's 'Titles of Honor [sic]', 1672, p.636, states that the eldest sons of Dukes are styled by the titles of their fathers' earldoms; and those of Marquesses and Earls by their fathers' Baronies or Viscounties.  Younger sons of Dukes and Marquesses are called Lords, in the style 'My Lord (Christian name) (surname)'.  Selden does not mention the use of 'Honorable', or the position of daughters, not in this passage of the book anyway. So at least part of the system of courtesy titles goes back to the 17th century of not earlier.2A00:23C5:6492:8D01:50CE:DB4B:7A78:7DE0 (talk) 10:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of courtesy titles