Prince Andrew ceases to use his title as Duke of York
Richard R
Richard R
"In discussion with The King, and my immediate and wider family, we have concluded the continued accusations about me distract from the work of His Majesty and the Royal Family. I have decided, as I always have, to put my duty to my family and country first. I stand by my decision five years ago to stand back from public life.
"With His Majesty's agreement, we feel I must now go a step further. I will therefore no longer use my title or the honours which have been conferred upon me. As I have said previously, I vigorously deny the accusations against me."
bx...@yahoo.com
Nick MacGregor Sadolin
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Peerage News" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to peerage-news...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/peerage-news/736b8595-64d9-4de9-9608-278411387340n%40googlegroups.com.
Nick MacGregor Sadolin
Paul Theroff
Sam Marroy
Paul Theroff
Queen Margrethe felt no compunction about stripping her grandchildren of their princely titles, and that wasn't even punishment for bad behavior.
But the British just say "Diana will no longer be called HRH"; "the Sussexes will no longer be called "HRH"; "Prince Andrew will voluntarily stop using SOME of his titles", instead of actually stripping them of the styles and titles to which they continue[d] to be entitled. And they say "Princess Louise and Prince James will not be called 'Princess' or 'Prince'" but of course they legally have those titles.
And even the stopping of the use of some styles and titles is inconsistent. I am no fan of the Sussexes, but why did they deserve to lose the "HRH" just because they perform no royal duties, when Prince Michael has always kept his "HRH" through a long lifetime of no royal duties?
LoopyCrown3
colinp
Sam Marroy
Paul Theroff
Nick MacGregor Sadolin
Well, in the matter of Her Majesty Queen Margrethe II of Denmark (the Queen still maintains Her Majesty after she abdicated), the Queen was as the Regent – according to our (I am Danish) constitution – above the laws.
In the Constitution it says, that the Regent only answers to God. The Regent is formally the head of the Danish church, the Supreme Court, the Cabinet, the Parliament, and the Civil Service and the Military, and the Regent formally appoint the people to these – except to the Parliament, as well as the six highest payroll levels (LR 37-42) of both the civil servants and the military servants.
It is also the Regent who confer orders, medals and so on, and until 1910, the Regent could also give peerage titles and naturalizing foreign peerage families and persons. This was however abolished by law – with the accept by the Regent and his heir.
Since then, peerage titles are only given within the royal family and their close royal relatives. The Regent solely decides, who gets these, and also solely decides if these are changed or remove.
Orders and medals on the other hand are automatically lost if you in a Danish or foreign court get any kind of prison sentence – due to the statutes says, that you have to “honourable” to have this.
Formally the Regent then requests the orders and medals to be returned – since you formally (only) borrow/loan these, and you are then stripped from the respective roll.
Same goes for the Lord Chamberlain's and the Master’s of the Hunts.
See:
Until His Royal Highness Prince Joachim of Denmark, the Queen’s youngest son and the brother of His Majesty, King Frederik X of Denmark, married his first wife, then Miss Alexandra Manley, who was commoner, all previous princes of the House of Glücksburg, who married commoners, had become Counts of Rosenborg (named after Rosenborg Palace in Copenhagen).
When HRH Prince Joachim and his first wife, HRH Princess Alexandra, later divorced, the Queen made her to Alexandra, Countess of Frederiksborg (named after the Frederiksborg Palace in Hillerød, and Frederiksborg also used to be a country).
In the case of HRH Prince Joachim’s children – with his first and second wives, his four children had to get their names changed from Prince / Princess of Denmark to Count / Countess of Montpezat. The Queen simply ordered their name changed.
So it is in the Danish Constitution you find these tools.
The UK is so differently constructed – because it four separate nations, which forms the historical kingdom, and also the whole legal system is different due to this. (According to me, it is a lot more complicated.)
Just the fact that British Regent can give a (royal) peerage title, but the same or another Regent cannot take it away from someone is (a little thing but) shows some of the major differences.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/peerage-news/3524c1e9-2012-4ad2-ba98-39e61afbfc92n%40googlegroups.com.
Sam Marroy
Ivan Prekajski
Paul Theroff
Henry W
bx...@yahoo.com
S. S.
Paul Theroff
S. S.
Paul Theroff
marquess
Jonathan
Sam Marroy
malcolm davies
marquess
malcolm davies
LoopyCrown3
Henry W
bx...@yahoo.com
Sam Marroy
John Horton (staff)
Sent: 18 October 2025 7:35 PM
To: Peerage News <peerag...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Prince Andrew ceases to use his title as Duke of York
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Peerage News" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to peerage-news...@googlegroups.com.
S. S.
Style of Peers' Widows
When a peer dies the only correct style for his widow is "the Dowager" prefaced to her peerage title. In cases where the new peer (in most cases, of course, a son) is unmarried, it seems to have become usual still to describe the lady as "the Duchess of " or "the Countess of", etc. 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.
If a modern leading case is required it is provided by Queen Mary. When King George V died and King Edward VIII succeeded unmarried, Queen Mary immediately ceased to be "the Queen", because that style and title is one which appertains only to a Queen regnant or the Consort of a King. In the ceremonial of the King's funeral she was described as Queen Mary and not as the Queen.
Thus the Countess of Blank cannot properly be so described when her husband dies and her unmarried son succeeds, because that style appertains to the wife of the "reigning" peer, and she does not fill that bill. No doubt some - probably a majority - continue to call themselves by the same style, but I know of no power which prevents someone calling himself or herself what he or she likes. But what they do must not be confused with what they may properly do.
In any case, as soon as the new peer marries, the widow must be distinguished in some way from the "reigning" peeress. As "the Dowager" is the correct form of that in which she would be summoned to any State function or be mentioned in the Court Circular, there should therefore be no objection to it. But undoubtedly the form is not popular with some ladies. It certainly does not convey an impression of youth, and that may be the explanation! Whatever the reason, there are some widows who prefer to prefix their former style with their Christian names - Arabella Lady This, Jane Countess of That, and so on. The mode seems to have become increasingly popular. It is necessarily adopted to avoid confusion when there is more than one Dowager.
"Remarriage of Peers' Widows
If a peer's widow remarries, she forfeits any title or style acquired by her former marriage and should take that of her new husband, unless she has any courtesy style of her own which takes precedence of his. In the past not a few have retained their previous styles. There is not the slightest justification for this. They do so, not in pursuance of any recognised custom, as I have stated, but because they cannot bear to give up their titular style, though they want the other advantages of a second marriage. This solecism has even been perpetrated by widows of eldest sons of peers using secondary peerages as purely courtesy titles.
If the widow of a peer marries another peer she takes her new husband's style, but here again there have been cases where the lady retained her fomer style if it was of higher rank than her new. Thus when the widow of the third and last Duke of Buckingham and Chandos made a second marriage with Earl Egerton of Tatton she still used the ducal style, though she would have been summoned to Court only as Countess Egerton of Tatton.
To complete the explanation under this head perhaps it should be added that in England and Ireland peeresses who have divorced their husbands or been divorced by them generally still continue to bear their husbands' styles, though in law they probably cease to be peeresses. When new wives appear on the scene former wives distinguish themselves by prefixing their Christian names to their titles.
There is on record an action brought by the third Earl Cowley, whose wife, formerly Lady Violet Nevill, had divorced him, seeking to restrain her from using the title of Countess Cowley after the divorce, on the ground that her use of the title was an injury to his "incorporeal hereditament", the earldom. She called herself Violet Countess Cowley, and was so known in society. The eloquence of the late Lord Haldane, who was Lord Cowley's counsel, persuaded the Divorce Court to grant an injunction against the Countess, but this decision was quickly upset in the Court of Appeal on the ground that the ordinary courts of law had no jurisdiction to consider a question of honour, and when the case was carried to the House of Lords that august body agreed with the Court of Appeal in no uncertain terms. Thus the Cowley case decided nothing.
In Scotland the position is different. There the law regarding a peeress whose marriage has ended in a divorce is as if her husband were dead, and she takes her legal rights as a widow.
The point arose at the beginning of this century in regard to the Marchioness of Queensberry, who had divorced her husband, the eighth Marquis. She claimed her right as a peeress to be summoned to the Coronation of King Edward VII, and was refused. Her lawyers sought the counsel of the then Mr. Francis Grant, Lyon Clerk and Keeper of the Records in the Court of Lord Lyon (afterwards Sir Francis, and Lyon King of Arms), and he advised that they should claim that the question be referred to the Law Officers for Scotland.
This was done, and the late Viscount Dunedin, then Sir Andrew Murray, the Lord Advocate, confirmed Mr. Grant's view, but said that the Lord Chancellor (Lord Halsbury) had given a wrong opinion, but that he must be let down gently. The result was that Lady Queensberry received a special invitation to the Abbey.
"