Talk:Edward Fitzalan-Howard, 18th Duke of Norfolk

message: In our entry on the Dukedom of Norfolk we say "The style Earl of Arundel is used as a courtesy title by the Duke's eldest son, the present one of which is Henry Fitzalan-Howard, Earl of Arundel. The style Lord Maltravers is used as a courtesy title by the eldest son of the Duke's eldest son (the Duke's grandson)."  And yet we say that the 18th Duke was styled "Edward Fitzalan-Howard, Esq. (1956–1971)" and "The Hon. Edward Fitzalan-Howard (1971–1975)".
First, I understand why at a young age he had no peerage title.  The 16th Duke, who was the Duke until his death in 1975, was from a different branch of the family.  
Second, I understand why, in 1971, he became The Hon. - his father inherited a peerage, the Barony of Beaumont in 1971.
And finally, I understand why, in 1975 he became Earl of Arundel - because his father inherited the Dukedom.
I thought there was an error here and it took some study to work this out.  I'm therefore only leaving this note here to help anyone else who comes along at some point and has the same puzzle as to why the present Duke was never styled Lord Maltravers.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Or, to sum it up, he was never called "Lord Maltravers" because he was never the eldest son of the eldest son of a Duke of Norfolk, as his father was not the son of a Duke of Norfolk.2604:2000:C6AA:B400:6CF9:3104:2109:6380 (talk) 13:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titles and styles 

message: This article has the sentence "The Duke, then the Earl of Arundel, married Georgina Susan Gore on 27 June 1987 ...".
Please see my comment at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Henry_Howard,_Earl_of_Surrey
. When he got married he was CALLED "Earl of Arundel" while not BEING the Earl of Arundel. He might have had titles via other routes, but suppose he didn't, suppose he was only his father's Heir Apparent. In that event he would not sit in the House of Lords or wear a coronet at ceremonies, and he would not, if tried for crimes, be able to keep commoners off of the jury. If he was an Earl before his father died, it was Earl of something else, not Arundel. The wikipedia article on Courtesy titles in the United Kingdom makes this clear.
:: I have used the verb "CALLED" in these matters because I can't ascertain whether "styled" or "titled" would be correct. If you know, you might advise. In my habit, the word "styled" is correct in the sentence "'Duke of Norfolk' is a title and 'Your Grace' is a style", and so it might be incorrect to say "styled Earl of Arundel". On the other hand a person who is CALLED "Earl of Arundel" doesn't have the actual title (i.e. he does not hold the earldom and the seat in Lords), and so I am loath to say "titled 'Earl of Arundel'" Not knowing which verb to use I've used neither and gone with "called".2604:2000:C6AA:B400:6CF9:3104:2109:6380 (talk) 13:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  We was not Earl of Arundel when he got married. He became Earl of Arundel when he became Duke of Norfolk 

message: The present title holder may be the first Duke of Norfolk to be divorced, and also remarried after divorce. Could someone please verify this? 42.107.68.1 (talk) 16:41, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Divorce