MY SELF-WRITTEN OMNIBUS GUIDE TO BRITISH ROYAL ANCESTRY, SUCCESSION TO THE BRITISH THRONE,
AND TO NOBILITY AND KNIGHTAGE IN THE MODERN UK,
AND TITLES IN CANADA
December 13, 2024 revision

By William H. White
If you happen to read this and wish to contact me, please email to marscan1ATgmail.com.

· Charts of Scottish, English and British monarchs from the 9^th century to present

· Descent from George V, showing present order of succession

· Present Princes and Princesses

· Nobility, Baronetage and Knightage: Titles and other information

· Titles in Canada

This is NOT a history of England, Scotland or the UK. Everything depicted here should properly be seen in context of the history that is not written. Someday I might include a digest of that history. My intent for now is to simply (or as simply as possible) show the succession to the thrones and the ancestry, rather than the history that surrounds them.

Disclaimer: While this may appear to be a document intended by the writer to be read by others for educational value, it realistically does not have that aim. This is an informal document, produced for personal enjoyment by and for myself, not for publication, and therefore written without footnotes or other attribution. It is written with the intention that everything said is true, or at least generally accepted.

PART 1

SUCCESSION TO THE THRONE OF ENGLAND, AND SUBSEQUENTLY OF THE UNITED KINGDOM AND OF THE OTHER REALMS, FROM THE TIME OF ALFRED THE GREAT, TO THE PRESENT

Foreword: As I write this in 2023, I have had the experience of being alive for two successions to the throne. I was only a small child when George VI was succeeded by his elder daughter Elizabeth. Much later I observed the final decades of her reign as Queen Elizabeth II, and the accession of her son as Charles III.

In these recent decades, as the Queen aged, there came suggestions from well-meaning members of the public that she should abdicate and pass the throne along to Charles, or indeed, directly to her grandson William. As her final years arrived there was increasing interest in the line of succession, that was accentuated by the falling out of favour, in at least some minds, of various members of the Royal Family, including Charles himself, but also Prince Andrew and Prince Harry. The discussion of where they fit in the line of succession is relevant as they have not lost their places. Similarly, the place, or lack of it, in the succession of royal spouses is also of interest. Also of interest are the styles and titles automatically or customarily used or bestowed upon members of the Royal Family, a subject I touch upon towards the end. My main message will be that the order of succession is a well-established concept, at least for the last several hundred years, and not open to the whims of the reigning monarch, let alone members of the public who prefer one person over the other. Without meaning to sound harsh, I will say that comments from the public come out of ignorance and appear in many cases to come from people in North America, sadly including Canada, who have basically little understanding as to how it all works. I have myself studied the order of succession and the rules surrounding it for many years. While I will not label myself as an expert, I certainly do not count myself as being among the ignorant when it comes to this subject.

It is difficult to know where to start historically with this account. I have chosen to go back to around the beginning of the 9^th century as the British Isles began to come out of the Dark Ages, or post-Roman period of time that was characterized by a lawlessness and tribalism.

It is not my intent to write a history of the United Kingdom or its predecessors. I intend to confine my comments as much as possible to the actual succession to the throne, but in some instances, it will be necessary to provide historical context. I have attempted to avoid comments regarding the accomplishments and follies of the monarchs themselves, and doing so does make this article a little dry.

In essence this will be a chronicle of the succession, monarch by monarch. You may find it useful to consult my succession chart as you read. This chart is included here, following the time line.

The “Rules” of Succession

It is most useful to get started by outlining the rules of succession as they stand in 2023. Yes, I used the word “rules” because there are rules in this game. Whether they be legislation or well-established custom may be a moot point. All I can say is this: It has been over 300 years since the Act of Settlement of 1701 established the rules followed to determine who is next in line.

Essentially the Act of Settlement put into law three major points:

Firstly, the order of succession was determined from the time of the Act to be by Male Preference Primogeniture. This concept was followed through to the beginning of our present century, when it was replaced by Absolute Primogeniture. These concepts are briefly described below.

Secondly, to succeed to the throne, a person must be an adherent of the Church of England, or more clearly, NOT a Roman Catholic, nor to be married to a Catholic. It is not my place here to comment on the appropriateness of the non-Catholic requirement, but to be simple, it does stem from the fact that the ruler must also be the supreme governor of the Church of England, which is rather impossible if you are a Catholic!

Thirdly, the monarch, and anyone in the line of succession, must be a descendent of Empress Sophia of Hanover, who herself was declared in the Act to be the successor to Queen Anne, the last of the Stewart monarchs. This was the determination within the Act of Settlement that had the purpose of excluding Catholic family members living at the time, and their descendants, from the line of succession. When Queen Anne was on the throne, the most senior places in the line of succession were all Catholics, and this legislation removed them, essentially skipping over them to the most senior non-Catholic person in the line of succession, who was Sophia of Hanover. Sophia was the grand-daughter of James I & VI, and Anne’s 2^nd cousin once removed upwards. The intent was that Sophia, if she outlived Anne, would become the next monarch of the United Kingdom. If not, her descendants according to “rules” one and two (above) would succeed. She lived some time as heiress-presumptive, but died just shortly before Anne, which caused her son George to become the heir apparent. On Anne’s death, he became King George of the United Kingdom.

Primogeniture

This is a word with two competing pronunciations. In the UK, and generally in Canada, it is pronounced more or less like pree-mo-genn-i-ture, whereas in the USA and sometimes in Canada, as pry-mo-genn-i-ture. I myself pronounce it in the British manner.

Primogeniture literally means “first-born”, so that whichever of the current monarch’s children was born first will succeed him or her. From this point, because there have been relatively few queens regnant, I will simplify my statements (with apologies) by using “he” and “him” and “his”. In some European monarchies the concept or rule in place is Male-Absolute Primogeniture, in which only male children can succeed to the throne. This is sometimes referred to as Salic Law. In Britain the premise until 2013 has been Male-Preference Primogeniture. In MPP, the first son born will be first in line, followed by the second son and so on. Daughters follow all their brothers, and therefore a daughter may only succeed to the throne, and become Queen Regnant if she has no brothers or if she had a brother but he did not survive his monarch-parent and was himself childless. It must immediately be said that if a child of a monarch has children himself, the line of succession goes to these children and their children before it goes back up to the younger brothers or to sisters. It already seems complicated in its description, and therefore it might be understandable that many people do not “get it”. The apparent complexities increase when the “heir apparent” does not survive his father but has children. In this case the first-born of them becomes the new heir apparent. This means that with every child born to the first-born son, the other sons and any daughters fall down the line of succession. To me this is all crystal-clear but the telling of it is not!

To illustrate (in words) I will refer here, as an example, to the case of the king’s sons William and Harry.

William is the heir apparent, being the elder of the two sons of King Charles III. He in turn has three children, and they are, in order of birth, the next three in the line of succession, i.e. numbers 2 to 4. Seeing as how there are, as yet, no children of these three children, the next person in the line, for now, is William’s brother Harry, at number 5, then his two children. After that it goes to the siblings of the king and their children. If William were to pass away today, his eldest child, George, becomes the new heir apparent. It doesn’t matter that he is a young child. If the king also dies, George becomes king, but his powers and duties would be assumed by a council of adult royals until he reaches the age of majority.

Strict adherence to primogeniture is relatively modern.

Primogeniture was the basic premise in play in Britain long before the Act of Settlement. From the reign (802-839) of Egbert of Wessex onwards, and into the Norman period it was at least a modifiable default. Prior to the ninth century, in the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, other members of the royal family were seen as legitimate contenders. At first primogeniture was a basic premise, and was modified or even disregarded in the earlier years., especially when the child of a dying monarch was very young. On occasion, later on, kings did in some cases advocate or choose their successor, contrary to the basic premise. More commonly, family members farther down the line usurped one or more members above them in order to seize the throne. In some cases, it was disputed in warfare, and in some cases simply accepted. It was really a lot more fluid back then than it is today. Many volumes have been written about the disputes and wars that have resulted from the former relative lack of precision in succession. The Act of Settlement firmly established the line of succession, and once the opposition to that law subsided, there has been no dispute whatsoever regarding succession in the United Kingdom.

Modern Changes

In 2011 the prime ministers of the 16 commonwealth realms met in Australia, and agreed upon two major changes to the rules of succession. This is referred to as the Perth Agreement.

The first amendment was to end and reverse the requirement that the monarch not be married to a Catholic. At the time there were several living people that were excluded from the line of succession due to having married a Catholic. They were therefore reinstated back into the line of succession. There was no retroactive time limit other than that they had to be alive when this amendment was made.

The second amendment is perhaps more widely important. In 2015, under terms of the Perth Agreement of 2011, and retroactive to children born after October 28, 2011, the order of succession became based on Absolute Primogeniture, so that males are no longer preferred over females. This reversed the order for only two children far down the line of succession and set the order for those to come. Thus, Princess Charlotte follows Prince George and precedes her younger brother Louis. In the long-standing male-preference system, Louis would have preceded Charlotte.

Drawbacks to having a definitive system

With it all being very definite today, clear-cut and predetermined, there are some drawbacks, at least in some minds. Child #1 is going to be king, no ifs or buts about it. It is possible that he/she doesn’t want to be king/queen. [from here I will use the male example] It is possible that he is mentally unsuitable to be king. Yet he will be king. Just think, what if the first-born is mentally challenged? What if Charles didn’t really want to be king? You are not able to turn down the throne if you are in line and it comes to you, though you can abdicate once you have it. Abdication itself has been considered by the public in recent years, as Queen Elizabeth aged, possibly because her uncle had done so in 1936. In fact, this was a very rare occurrence, and no other monarch in the last several hundred years abdicated other than under coercion. My impression was that those who advocated for the queen to abdicate wanted her grandson William to succeed her, not her son Charles, but she would have had no power to skip over Charles. Charles was the heir apparent for many decades and there was no escape from that fact. This sense of duty and fate that is placed on the heir apparent is why I am perhaps more sympathetic to Charles than some others have been. He was born with his path decided, with no say at all. Based on the time in which he grew up, even his choice of a bride was based on expectations, not on his personal preference or emotion. This latter concept has rapidly evolved in recent decades, so that although the monarch must approve the marriages of the first six in the line of succession, the idea of actually choosing or banning prospective spouses seems to have been abandoned.

The Succession Timeline

Now, as we come to the succession timeline, one must remember that things were not as “cut and dried” in the past, and what is in place now was the result of evolution from what was merely a concept of “the king is succeeded by his first son”, grossly distorted by decrees, wars and familial infighting. It is readily apparent that most of the time in England, kings were succeeded by their eldest son, but there were quite a few exceptions, some of them historically momentous. In Scotland, in the early years, there was an alternation between branches of the same family, but this may have been more the result of overthrows rather than a prescribed routine.

A DIGEST OF THE HISTORY OF ENGLAND PRIOR TO THE 9^TH CENTURY AD

Long before the monarchs of England and Scotland came into existence, there were people living in the British Isles. At the height of the last Ice Age, about 21000 years ago, Great Britain was in fact part of the continent, as the water level was about 120 metres lower than it is today. This period of time lies within the Upper Paleolithic or last subdivision of the Old Stone Age. This was followed by the Mesolithic (approximately 15000 BC to 5000 BC in Europe) and the Neolithic from then until around 2000 BC. The British Bronze Age then spanned from around 2000 BC to 800 BC, and the Iron Age from then until the Roman Occupation of 43 AD.

Great Britain became an island during the Mesolithic about 6100 BC, as sea levels rose with the gradual end of the last Ice Age

Recorded history of the area now encompassed by England really began with the first Roman invasion in 55 BC. Certainly there were people living in Britain prior to that time but they did not record in writing their story and therefore little is known definitively about them.

Julius Caesar invaded Britain in 55 BC in order to subdue the Celts on the island who had been supporting the Celts of Gaul, who were opposing the Roman continental conquest. His forces defeated a Celtic Briton coalition in what is now southern England, and secured a promise of regular tributes. He then withdrew his forces, and essentially “England” was left much as it had been until AD 43. Trade and cultural relations had continued in the meantime between the people of Britain and those of Gaul. Eventually the new emperor, Claudius decided to bring Britain under Roman control, and sent four Roman legions across to Kent, marking the real beginning of Roman Britain in AD 43.

It is not the intent to chronicle the history of Roman Britain, nor to choose sides. It is certainly true that the level of governance, engineering and ‘civilization” brought by Rome was impressive. The Romanization and occupation of Britain was not complete, with Wales and Scotland never occupied. In a way it can be said that the occupation of what is now England did help to establish what is and what is not England today.

The Roman occupation did lead to some interbreeding with the population it subdued, these being the Britons for the most part. The Romans built a network of roads and numerous structures such as villas and forts with advanced features well surpassing those of the previous dominant population. This is all similar to what happened in other parts of the Roman Empire. This advanced civilization lasted until the early 5^th century when Roman forces were withdrawn in order to assist with defending the Empire’s core in the face of an onslaught of outside invaders.

The era immediately following the withdrawal of Roman forces did not mean that all people of Roman descent were gone. Many were left behind to defend themselves, and there were many as well who were interspersed with, and allied with, and now related to, the population of Britons. Without the centralized Roman government and forces to back it, England did regress in terms of what we would call civilization, and gradually entered the Dark Ages. The advances that came with the Roman occupation such as writing, engineering, sanitation and organization were lost. It is thought that some areas held on longer than others, particularly in the southwest. It is speculated that a Romano-Briton regional Golden Age existed for a century or more, leading to the tales of King Arthur; however none of this has been proven to have existed. Most Roman structures were dismantled for their materials, and remnants such as mosaic floors covered over by other structures or simply by the deposits of time. The main feature left behind to this day is the Roman road network. While they themselves did not remain in use for many centuries, the roads that came later often followed their routes.

The Dark Ages or Sub-Roman era also marked the gradual arrival of peoples from northwestern Europe, including the Angles, Saxons and Jutes. There was a resurgence of small kingdoms, with the original Britons forced to the southwest, and farther out the Celts, who remained more or less where they had been, in what is now Wales, Ireland and Scotland. The Vikings began their incursions into England in the late 8^th century and over time took over or settled some areas along the east coast. Despite this intermittent but serious Viking threat, England, or what we now know as England, came under control of the amalgamation of the Angles and Saxons, known as the Anglo-Saxons, but there was not an England as a unity until the tenth century. The kingdom of West Sussex (Wessex) arose gradually to become the strongest of the kingdoms and eventually subjugated the others. Alfred the Great of Wessex became the pre-eminent leader and may have considered himself to be King of all the Anglo-Saxons in the late 9^th century, but it was not until the reign of his grandson Athelstan that most of what is now England actually came under Wessex control, when the York Vikings were defeated. Note however that later in history, the Danes who might be considered Viking descendants, returned and encroached on Anglo-Saxon supremacy. My charting of the royal succession of English monarchs begins properly with Athelstan, the first king of all the English, but I have also gone back a little in time in the Wessex line before him to illustrate the background and to indicate the pattern of succession.

The Viking/Danish Era in England

The Viking era began in the 8^th Century and lasted, with intermittent intensity, to near the beginning of the 12^th Century Note that the Normans were also of Viking stock but had been “Frenchified” and are not considered here to be part of the Viking/Danish period. This is an excerpt taken straight from Wikipedia:

“During the reign of King Beorhtric of Wessex (786–802), three ships of "Northmen" landed at Portland Bay in Dorset.^[33] The local reeve mistook the Vikings for merchants and directed them to the nearby royal estate, but the visitors killed him and his men. On 8 June 793, "the ravages of heathen men miserably desecrated God's church on Lindisfarne, with plunder and slaughter".^[34] According to the 12th-century Anglo-Norman chronicler Symeon of Durham, the raiders killed the resident monks or threw them into the sea to drown or carried them away as slaves – along with some of the church treasures.^[35] In 875, after enduring eight decades of repeated Viking raids, the monks fled Lindisfarne, carrying the relics of Saint Cuthbert with them.^[36]

In 794, according to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, a small Viking fleet attacked a rich monastery at Jarrow.^[37] The Vikings met with stronger resistance than they had expected: their leaders were killed. The raiders escaped, only to have their ships beached at Tynemouth and the crews killed by locals.^[38][39] This represented one of the last raids on England for about 40 years. The Vikings focused instead on Ireland and Scotland.

In 865, a group of hitherto uncoordinated bands of predominantly Danish Vikings joined to form a large army and landed in East Anglia.^[40] The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle described this force as the mycel hæþen here (Great Heathen Army) and went on to say that it was led by Ivar the Boneless and Halfdan Ragnarsson.^{[41][42][43][44]} The army crossed the Midlands into Northumbria and captured York (Jorvik

).^[40] In 871, the Great Heathen Army was reinforced by another Danish force known as the Great Summer Army led by Guthrum. In 875, the Great Heathen Army split into two bands, with Guthrum leading one back to Wessex, and Halfdan taking his followers north.^[45][46] Then in 876, Halfdan shared out Northumbrian land south of the Tees amongst his men, who "ploughed the land and supported themselves", founding the territory later known as the Danelaw.^[a][46]

Most of the English kingdoms, being in turmoil, could not stand against the Vikings, but King Alfred of Wessex defeated Guthrum's army at the Battle of Edington in 878. There followed the Treaty of Wedmore the same year^[50][51] and the Treaty of Alfred and Guthrum in 886.^[52][53] These treaties formalised the boundaries of the English kingdoms and the Viking Danelaw territory, with provisions for peaceful relations between the English and the Vikings. Despite these treaties, conflict continued on and off. However, Alfred and his successors eventually drove back the Viking frontier and retook York.^[54]

A new wave of Vikings appeared in England in 947, when Erik Bloodaxe captured York.^[55] The Viking presence continued through the reign of the Danish prince Cnut the Great (reigned as King of England: 1016–1035), after which a series of inheritance arguments weakened the hold on power of Cnut's heirs.

When King Edward the Confessor died in 1066, the Norwegian king Harald Hardrada challenged his successor as King of England, Harold Godwinson. Hardrada was killed, and his Norwegian army defeated, by Harold Godwinson on 25 September 1066 at the Battle of Stamford Bridge.^[56] Harold Godwinson himself died when the Norman William the Conqueror defeated the English army at the Battle of Hastings in October 1066. William was crowned king of England on 25 December 1066; however, it was several years before he was able to bring the kingdom under his complete control.^[57] In 1070, the Danish king Sweyn Estridsson sailed up the Humber with an army in support of Edgar the Ætheling, the last surviving male member of the English royal family. However, after capturing York, Sweyn accepted a payment from William to desert Edgar.^[57][58] Five years later one of Sweyn's sons set sail for England to support another English rebellion, but it had been crushed before the expedition arrived, so they settled for plundering the city of York and the surrounding area before returning home.^[57]

In 1085, Sweyn's son, now Canute IV of Denmark, planned a major invasion of England but the assembled fleet never sailed. No further serious Danish invasions of England occurred after this.^[57] Some raiding occurred during the troubles of Stephen's reign, when King Eystein II of Norway took advantage of the civil war to plunder the east coast of England, where they sacked Hartlepool, County Durham and Whitby, Yorkshire in 1152. These raids marked the conclusion of the Viking Age in England”

LIST OF MONARCHS OF WESSEX, ENGLAND AND THE UNITED KINGDOM, FROM THE EARLY 9^TH CENTURY TO THE PRESENT, NOTING ESPECIALLY THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF SUCCESSION

It is hard to pinpoint exactly when England became an entity. The first step was the unification of much of present-day England under the dominance of the Kingdom of Wessex beginning around the start of the 9^th century. Alfred is considered by some historians to be the first king of England, but it remains in question as to whether there really was an “England” at that time. Alfred was the first of the Wessex kings to describe himself as King of the English, but the first instance of all or practically all of present-day England to be under one king was in 927 during the reign of Athelstan.

Comment re spelling: Many names in Anglo-Saxon times are spelled with an “ash” Æ but variously rendered as Ae, A, E. I am perhaps not consistent here. In Word the ligature is typed by Pressing Control Shift & A (or a).

MONARCH	YEAR	AGE	SUCCESSION NOTES
KINGS OF WESSEX The House of Wessex The Kingdom of the West Saxons (also known as Wessex) is thought to have originated as the Gewisse, around 520 AD, not long after then withdrawal of the Romans. Its early history is distorted by legend. Its originating population may have been purely Saxon, but perhaps may have been partially Briton. According to legend the western end of Wessex, extending into present-day Somerset was the location of Camelot and the court of King Arthur, associated with the remnants of the Romano-Briton culture, and which became gradually supplanted by the gradually rising Anglo-Saxon population. There were several other kingdoms that arose in sub-Roman “England” but Wessex ultimately became the dominant one, and its line of monarchs eventually became the monarchs of all England. Due to this evolution, my succession timeline for English monarchs is extended back to Wessex in 802, when the order of succession began to be clarified by primogeniture. By the beginning of the 9^th century, Wessex was dominant in the south of what is now England. Some areas within Wessex, such as Kent, had sub-kings under the Wessex hegemony. The succession of Aethelwulf in 839 marked the first basically continuous use of primogeniture, with only a very few exceptions from that point onwards into the English and British eras, right to today.
Egbert	802-839		Succeeded by his son Aethelwulf. During their reigns an era of Viking attacks began.
Aethelwulf	839-858		Succeeded by his eldest son Aethelbald
Aethelbald	858-860		Having no issue, he was succeeded by his brother Aethelbert
Aethelbert	860-865		Having no issue, he was succeeded by his brother Aethelred. The Great Heathen Army invasion occurred in this era.
Aethelred I	865-871		On his death, his sons Aethelhelm and Aethelwold were still infants who were passed over, and therefore he was succeeded by his younger brother Alfred.
Alfred the Great (Styled as King of the West Saxons but later in reign self-described as King of all the English.) He is often regarded as being the first King of England, but historians generally consider Athelstan to be the first to rule all or practically all of what is present-day England.	871-899	37	Succeeded by his son Edward. Alfred died of illnesses at the age of about 51. The fact that Alfred had been preceded by his older brother Aethelred, who had children, meant that Edward’s reign was in question. Aethelhelm died before Alfred, so was not a factor, but Aethelwold vigorously but unsuccessfully disputed the succession and reign of Edward the Elder.
Edward the Elder	899	25	Succeeded by his eldest son Athelstan.
ANGLO-SAXON MONARCHS OF ALL THE ENGLISH The House of Wessex
Aethelstan (First king generally recognized today as being truly King of England, due to defeating the York Vikings in 927)	924	30	Having no children, Athelstan was succeeded by his half-brother Edmund. At that time the northern and eastern part of England went back under Norwegian control, meaning that Edmund’s reign was devoted to regaining that area.
Edmund I	939		Succeeded by his half-brother Eadred. When Edmund died trying to save his servant from an attack by bandits, his two sons were too young to rule, and therefore he was succeeded by his younger brother Eadred.
Eadred	946		Dying without children, Eadred was succeeded by Edmund’s elder son Eadwig. Eadred having no children certainly avoided the difficulty of choosing between a child and the two sons of Edmund who had previously been bypassed.
Eadwig	955	15	Dying without children, Eadwig was succeeded by his younger brother Edgar.
Edgar the Peaceable	959	15	Edgar was succeeded by Edward, his eldest son by his first “wife”. Edward was not the acknowledged heir due to the questionable marital status of his parents, and therefore other factions promoted Edward’s half-brother Ethelred.
Edward the Martyr	975	13	Having been king for only three years, Edward was murdered, without having children and was succeeded by his younger half-brother Ethelred.
Aethelred II the Unready	978	12	Throughout his reign, conflict with the Danes was paramount. Due to a successful Danish invasion, Ethelred went into exile in Normandy, abandoning the throne, and was succeeded by the Danish king Sweyn Forkbeard.
DANISH MONARCH
Sweyn Forkbeard (first monarch of the Danish House)	1013	50	Sweyn was succeeded by Ethelred, returning from exile. Having only been king of England for five weeks, Forkbeard died. His cause of death is unknown. The Danelaw proclaimed his son Cnut as king, but the majority of England recalled Ethelred back from exile and reinstalled him as king.
ANGLO-SAXON MONARCHS reinstated
Ethelred II the Unready [restored]	1014	48	Amidst ongoing conflict with Cnut and the Danes, Ethelred died in April 1016. He was succeeded as king in parts of England by his third son Edmund (his two older brothers having died). Edmund had been in revolt against his father, but also opposed to Cnut. Other parts of England came under control of the Danish Cnut.
Edmund II (Ironside) (House of Wessex regained)	1016		Edmund was succeeded by the Danish Cnut (Canute). Edmund reigned only for a few months in 1016, and with his death (possibly by murder), all of England came under control of Cnut. Edmund’s sons Edward and Edmund were sent away by order of Cnut but Edward survived and prospered in exile. By inheritance Edward (“the Exile”) should have become king, and years later nearly achieved that, with the blessing of Edward the Confessor.
DANISH MONARCHS reinstated
Cnut (the Great) (Danish House regained) Despite not being an Anglo-Saxon, Cnut was a great king in the sense at least that he ultimately united England, Denmark and Norway into the North Sea Empire.	1016	26	On his death Cnut was succeeded de facto by his second son Harold Harefoot, who was intended to be regent for his half-brother Harthacnut.
Harold Harefoot Was legally regent for his elder brother Harthacnut, who was not accepted in England. He eventually became king de jure in 1037.	1035		On his death in 1040, Harold was succeeded by his half-brother Harthacnut who returned to England and peacefully became king.
Harthacnut (Last King of the Danish House)	1040		Harthacnut was succeeded by his half-brother, the Saxon Edward. Their mother was Emma of Normandy who had married Cnut after the death of Ethelred. Edward was the 7^th son of Ethelred the Unready, and he was also half-brother of Edmund Ironside. Harthacnut died in 1042 in suspicious circumstances, and with several claimants to the throne amongst the Danish and Norwegians. None of them were able to actually take the throne, as power had shifted back to the Saxons. Edward certainly had a strong claim, being related to Harthacnut and to the previous Saxon monarchs. And he had held considerable power during Harthacnut’s reign, along with his father in law, Earl Godwin.
ANGLO-SAXON MONARCHS reinstated
Edward the Confessor (Last king of the House of Wessex)	1042		Edward died childless, with the succession being highly contentious. He was succeeded by his brother-in-law Harold, son of the powerful Earl Godwin by designation, not by inheritance. According to descent Edward the Exile, son of Edmund Ironside (see above) had the best claim to succeed, and he returned to England while Edward was still alive. He died suddenly, not long after his return. On his death the succession became unclear. He did have a son Edgar but he was very young and therefore not considered suitable at that time to succeed. There were also claims that Edward had at one point named his first cousin once removed, William of Normandy, to be his heir, however on his deathbed the king named Harold as his successor. The choice was approved by the Witenagemot, and Harold was the first monarch to be crowned in Westminster Abbey.
Harold II (Godwinson) (of the House of Godwin) [The last crowned Anglo-Saxon king of England]	1066	44	With his death in battle Harold was succeeded by his conqueror, William of Normandy. Note that Harold did have several sons but their chance of succession was negated by the Norman conquest and establishment of an entirely new dynasty. Harold had ascended to the throne in January 1066, and in September he and his army repelled an invasion in the north by Harold Hardrada from Norway. On hearing that the Normans were invading in the south he force marched the army south to meet them, which it did at the Battle of Hastings. William, Duke of Normandy timed his invasion well. He believed that Edward the Confessor had promised the throne of England to him, and the invasion was the result. In the battle, Harold II was killed, and William became the first Norman king of England.
Edgar Atheling	Edgar Atheling (son of Edward the Exile) was proclaimed king by the Wittan following Harold’s death at Hastings. This happened despite the fact that Harold had several sons. Edgar had a legitimate claim to the throne by inheritance from the House of Wessex (which Harold and his sons did not have), but that fact was overtaken by the Norman conquest. Edgar was not crowned and is generally not recognized as being a legitimate monarch. Edgar did not attempt to remain king and submitted to William. He did later support renewed Danish aggression until bought off by William, but ultimately he went on to live a long and quiet life, mostly in alliance with William the Conqueror’s son Robert Curthose. Note that Edgar’s sister Margaret became Queen of Scotland in 1070, and therefore the modern British royal family is indeed descended in part from Edmund Ironside and other Anglo Saxon monarchs.
NORMAN MONARCHS AND DESCENDANTS OF THEM
WILLIAM I (THE CONQUEROR)	1066		William was succeeded by his third (but second surviving) son William Rufus. The eldest son was Robert (Curthose), the second was Richard, who died childless in 1070, the third was William Rufus, and the fourth was Henry Beauclerc. On his death William the Conqueror was Duke of Normandy as well as King of England. He split the succession, so that Robert succeeded to the Dukedom, and William Rufus succeeded to the throne of England. Throughout their adult lives Robert was at odds with the other sons, maintaining that he should have become King of England.
WILLIAM II (RUFUS)	1087		William was succeeded by his younger brother Henry Beauclerc. William died unmarried at the age of 43 in a hunting incident, with uncertain circumstances. He was in the unusual situation of not only having a younger brother but also an older one as well. This was Robert, who had inherited Normandy but not England, on the death of William the Conqueror. Robert believed that he had the first claim in this circumstance of William II dying without issue. However, the younger brother Henry was present on the hunting expedition, and immediately rode for the capital where he was accepted as king by the nobles.
HENRY I (BEAUCLERC)	1100		In a very complicated and contested succession, Henry was succeeded by his nephew Stephen of Blois. Henry had two children, these being William Adelin and Maud (more commonly known as Matilda). William was fully expected to eventually succeed Henry but he died in 1120 at the age of 17 in the White Ship marine disaster. This left only his daughter Matilda. In today’s world there would be no question that she would succeed her father, but back then it was a different matter. Matilda had been married to the Holy Roman Emperor, to become Empress Matilda, and subsequently widowed while still young. After some time of Henry attempting to have another son, he declared that Matilda should succeed him. She had remarried, to Geoffrey, Count of Anjou, but continued to use the title Empress Matilda. It is stated that Henry later in life favoured his nephew Stephen, the fourth son of his sister Adela, who had married the Count of Blois. Stephen spent a great deal of time in the English court, and became quite powerful. When Henry died, Matilda had several strikes against her in the eyes of the English nobles. She was a female, she was the wife of the Count of Anjou, whom the nobles feared would act as king, and lastly, she was absent on the continent. Stephen had none of these “shortcomings” and was accepted as king almost immediately upon the death of Henry. There were also other claimants and this succession was not simple. As in any controversial happening, there were people who supported one, and people who supported the other. In this case the disagreement led to “The Anarchy”, a long period of civil war involving the Norman ruling class, and leaving the Anglo-Saxon underclass without effective government.,
STEPHEN Only monarch in the House of Blois	1135 to 1141 and 1141 to 1154		Stephen was succeeded by his first cousin once removed Henry of Anjou, aka Henry Plantagenet. This was a succession that was gained by way of a decade of turmoil called simply “The Anarchy”. In this conflict the supporters of King Stephen were pitted against those who supported the Empress Matilda. As noted just below, Matilda did gain a few weeks with more power than King Stephen as noted just below, and is sometimes included in lists of English monarchs. Ultimately she lost that power, back to Stephen, and the civil war continued until the stalemate became too much. In the Treaty of Wallingford in 1153 it was agreed by the two sides that Stephen would continue as king until death, but at that time he would be succeeded by Matilda’s son Henry. Stephen’s own children were “cut out” of the succession.
MATILDA If counted as a monarch, she was the first English queen regnant. She was the last of the Norman house.	1141		Matilda gained ascendancy for only a short time and not generally listed as having actually been a monarch. She lost power and therefore was succeeded by Stephen, who resumed power. Note however that Stephen was ultimately succeeded by Matilda’s son Henry. Matilda was married to the Count Geoffrey of Anjou on the continent. He was also referred to as Geoffrey Plantagenet, due to the sprig of the broom plant that he purportedly wore in his cap. Due to this, their son Henry was known as Henry Plantagenet or Henry of Anjou, prior to becoming king.
HENRY II The first Plantagenet monarch, however he and his two successors are often referred to as the Angevins, due to maintaining the vast holdings inherited from Henry’s father Count Geoffrey of Anjou.	1154		Returning to a more stable time, Henry was succeeded by his son Richard. From the beginning of his reign Henry determined to firmly establish his eldest son Henry as his successor. In 1170 King Henry installed young Henry (only 15 years old) as “co-king”. The intent was to gradually increase his power and to have an eventual smooth succession. The younger Henry is generally known as The Young King, but is not normally recognized as being an actual king, and is not counted as such here in this article. Henry II’s intentions were thwarted by the early death of the Young King without issue. The next son Richard became the heir and succeeded to the throne on the death of Henry II.
RICHARD I the Lionhearted.	1189		Richard was succeeded by his youngest brother John, in what was a bypassing of the family of the in-between brother Geoffrey. Richard was absent from England for almost all his reign, being more interested in the Crusades. He died overseas unmarried. He had two younger brothers, Geoffrey of Brittany and John Lackland. Geoffrey would have been next in line but he died in 1186, which, in turn, made his very young son Arthur of Brittany the heir to Richard. On his deathbed Richard instead named his youngest brother John Lackland as his heir, as he thought Arthur to be too young. John had been left in charge while Richard was overseas, and therefore had experience in “running the country”. As such he is immortalized in the Robin Hood tales as “Evil Prince John” whether or not he deserved this characterization. Arthur remained as a possible contender for the throne, due to having been bypassed, but he died young in circumstances sometimes described as “murder by John” although this was never proven.
JOHN	1199		John was succeeded by his son Henry. John is considered to be the last of the Angevin monarchs, as the bulk of the territory in France, including Anjou itself, was lost in his reign. On is death the crown went to his son Henry, in the first straightforward succession in many years. Monarchs from this point are usually referred to as Plantagenets rather than Angevins.
HENRY III	1216		Henry was succeeded by his son Edward.
EDWARD I	1272		Edward was succeeded by his son Edward, who was his only son who had survived childhood.
EDWARD II	1307		Edward was succeeded in abdication by his son Edward. The elder Edward was forced to abdicate and subsequently murdered. He was on abdication replaced by his 14-year-old son Edward.
EDWARD III	1327		Edward was succeeded by his grandson Richard, whose father, Edward the Black Prince, had died already. Edward III had four other sons, all of whose lines figured in the later Wars of the Roses.
RICHARD II	1377		Richard was deposed in 1399, with no issue and with no siblings. He was succeeded by his first cousin Henry Bolingbroke, son of his father’s deceased younger brother John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster. This was a usurpation, because according to the concept of primogeniture the crown should have passed to the family of Richard’s older uncle, not to that of John of Gaunt. This is best seen in the chart, and was the originating factor of the Wars of the Roses that arose in the future.
HENRY IV	1399		Henry IV was succeeded by his son Henry.
HENRY V	1413		Henry V was succeeded by his son Henry.
HENRY VI	1422		Henry was deposed into exile in 1461 and succeeded by his 3^rd cousin Edward, a Yorkist whose claim to the throne is best seen on the chart. While he and his descendants are referred to as Yorkists, the greater claim to the throne came through Edward’s descent from the line that had been bypassed by Henry Bolingbroke back in 1377.
EDWARD IV	1461		Edward was deposed and succeeded by the restoration of Henry VI.
HENRY VI (restored)	1470		Henry was again deposed and again succeeded by Edward IV. After only six months back on the throne Henry’s son was killed in battle, and he himself was imprisoned and soon after died.
EDWARD IV (restored)	1471		Edward was succeeded by his young son Edward, who was soon after (with his younger brother) detained or imprisoned by their uncle Richard of York, who declared them and their sister to be illegitimate, and therefore made himself the legal heir to his brother Edward.
EDWARD V	1483		Edward V was succeeded by his uncle Richard, who had imprisoned him and his brother, and purportedly left them to die.
RICHARD III Last Monarch of the House of Plantagenet	1483		Richard was defeated in battle and succeeded by his 3^rd cousin once removed Henry Tudor. Henry took the throne by conquest, rather than by any actual claim of inheritance. Richard had one son who died in 1484. Richard himself died in battle with forces of Henry Tudor. Henry Tudor was related to the Lancaster line, but after taking the throne, he married Edward IV’s daughter Elizabeth of York, and therefore united the two factions, and ended the Wars of the Roses era.
HENRY VII First Monarch of the House of Tudor	1485		Henry was succeeded by his second son Henry, as his eldest son Arthur, Prince of Wales, had died without children, seven years previously.
HENRY VIII	1509		Henry was succeeded by his young son Edward. The succession to Henry VIII was fraught with complications involving his several wives and the wish to have a son to succeed him, and the resultant establishment of the Church of England.
EDWARD VI	1547		Dying young and unmarried Edward decreed that he should be succeeded by his 1^st cousin once removed, Lady Jane Grey. In more modern times it would have been clear that his elder half-sister should succeed him, but this was muddied by questions of legitimacy and religion, and by influences over the young king. Edward was anti-Catholic like his father and was determined that his Catholic half-sister Mary should not succeed him, hence his decree to by-pass her and as well his other half-sister Elizabeth.
JANE Jane became queen, however some historians choose to dismiss her from the list of monarchs, as she ruled only for nine days before being overthrown.	1553		Jane was deposed after only a nine-day reign and succeeded by her 2^nd cousin once removed upwards Mary (who was Edwrd’s half-sister). Not immediately executed, but eventually she was, a fate she would probably have avoided had she gone to live a quiet existence in the country as requested.
MARY I (“Bloody Mary”)	1553		Dying without children, Mary was succeeded by her half-sister Elizabeth. Mary had married Philip of Spain, and while he was styled as “king”, his family gained no place in the line of succession.
ELIZABETH I	1558		Succeeded by her first cousin twice removed, King James VI of Scotland.
Union of the Crowns, by the accession of James VI of Scotland to the English throne as James I
JAMES I (VI of Scotland)	1603		James was succeeded by his second son, Charles. His eldest son Henry had died in 1612, with no issue,
CHARLES I	1625		With his execution in 1649, the monarchy was abolished and replaced by the Council of State. In the Restoration of 1660. Charles was succeeded by his elder son Charles.
1^st Interregnum (Commonwealth) 1653-1660
CHARLES II	1660		Having no legitimate issue, Charles was succeeded by his brother James.
JAMES II (VII of Scotland)	1685		Following a loss of popular support, James was overthrown in 1688 and went into exile, causing a short interregnum.
2^nd Interregnum (Dec 1688 to April 1689)	1688/9		The interregnum ended when parliament decreed that James II’s daughter Mary and her husband (and first cousin) William of Orange (who was James’ nephew) be installed as joint monarchs
WILLIAM III & MARY II (joint monarchs) (William II of Scotland)	1689		Mary died first, in 1694, with William continuing alone. On his death and without children, William was succeeded by Mary’s sister Anne.
By the Act of Settlement of 1701, succession to the crown after Queen Anne was legally defined to be the Electress Sophia of Hanover (bypassing 56 Catholics higher in the unrestricted line) and subsequently Sophia’s non-Catholic descendants. This has meant that since the reign of Anne, all succession to the throne has been legally determined , with no usurpations, no uncertainties.
ANNE	1702		Anne continued as Queen when Scotland and England became one.
By the Acts of Union, 1707, the kingdoms of Scotland and England were combined into the United Kingdom of Great Britain. Prior to this, the monarchs from James to Anne had been separately monarchs of England and of Scotland. Later this union developed further: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland from 1801, and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from 1922. By other treaties, also the monarch of other realms as they became independent.
ANNE Last monarch of the House of Stuart.	1707		Under the terms of the Act of Settlement, Anne was succeeded by her second cousin George of Hanover (son of the Electress Sophia, who had died just before Anne).
GEORGE I First Monarch of the House of Hanover Also Elector of Hanover	1714		George was succeeded by his only son George.
GEORGE II Also Elector of Hanover	1727		George was succeeded by his grandson George, eldest son of Frederick, Prince of Wales who had died in 1751.
GEORGE III Also Elector and later King of Hanover	1760		George was succeeded by his eldest son George.
GEORGE IV Also King of Hanover	1820		Having no issue, George was succeeded by his younger brother William
WILLIAM IV Also King of Hanover	1830		Having no legitimate issue, William was succeeded as British monarch by his niece Victoria, only child of his deceased brother Edward. and as King of Hanover by his brother Ernest Augustus.
VICTORIA	1837		Victoria was succeeded by her eldest son Edward.
EDWARD VII First monarch of the House of Saxe Coburg and Gotha (later Windsor)	1901		Edward was succeeded by his 2^nd (and eldest surviving) son George, as Albert Victor had died in 1892 with no issue. This latter event has been described as fortunate for the throne.
GEORGE V	1920		George was succeeded by his eldest son Edward.
EDWARD VIII	1936		Having abdicated and with no issue, Edward was succeeded by the eldest of his brothers, Albert, who ascended to the throne as George VI.
GEORGE VI	1936		Having no male issue, George was succeeded by his elder daughter Elizabeth
ELIZABETH II	1952		Elizabeth was succeeded by her eldest son Charles
CHARLES III	2022		The heir apparent is his first son William, Prince of Wales, whose heir, in turn, is his eldest child Prince George.

PART 2

SCOTLAND, from the union of Dal Riata and Pictland as Alba in the 9^th century, to the Union of the Crowns in 1603

The first chart is analogous to the chart shown earlier for Wessex, England, and the United Kingdom.

While the history of England is long and complex, that of Scotland is even more so, and from my viewpoint is almost chaotic at times, similar in some ways to the area known as England before the dominance of Wessex. Not only was there continuous grappling for territories, there was also a more complex way of succession to the crown. It is impossible here to relate the history of Scotland, and even the simpler task of depicting succession is quite difficult due to lack of historical records, and disagreement amongst those that exist. As a person of Scottish descent I am not sure whether I should despair or celebrate this lack of straight-forwardness.

From the 6^th century, the area that is now Scotland was principally divided into several regions or kingdoms, these being Strathclyde and Lothian in the south, Pictland in the centre, the Gaelic Dal Riata in the west, and the Anglo-Saxon Northumbria in the southeast. Viking settlements were common in the north from the 8^th century. In the early 9^th century the Gaelic Kenneth MacAlpin from Dal Riata gained control of Pictland in response to Viking threats, and unified much of the area as Pictland, leading ultimately to the extinction of the Pictish language in favour of Gaelic. Kenneth is therefore commonly considered to be the first king of Scotland (known at the time as Alba), even though he and his descendants for a few generations continued to be called kings of the Picts. His controlled area did not include Strathclyde and Lothian which did not become part of the kingdom until the 12^th century and beyond.

Rules of succession. During the tenure of the House of Alpin, at the beginning of this chart, there was a tanistry system of succession. This system did not automatically favour the son of the present ruler, and allowed for members of the extended family to vie for the throne. In many cases during the Alpin dynasty, the throne alternated between two branches of the family. This can partly be attributed to overall intent, and partly to the fact that rivalries, overthrows, and murders were more common and intense in Scotland than they were in England. One can speculate that the relative orderliness in England was due to the prevalence from an earlier time of the concept of primogeniture which did not allow for as much uncertainty.

The last of the Alpin monarchs, King Malcolm II, introduced male preference primogeniture, so that from the early 11^th century onwards (about 200 years after England), succession was much more pre-ordained. .

Note that names are Anglicized from the Gaelic versions actually used at the time, for the benefit of myself and other modern readers. This does introduce into research and writing a certain level of confusion.

MONARCH	YEAR	AGE	SUCCESSION NOTES
House of Alpin. During this dynasty succession was by tanistry, in which there is an alternation between branches of the family. Records for this era are sparse and confusing, therefore information presented here cannot be considered definitive. Monarchial names used here are almost all Anglicied after the fact. Monarchs spoke Gaelic and were known by Gaelic names.
Kenneth I MacAlpin Son of Alpin, King of Dal Riata	843		On his death from natural causes, Kenneth was succeeded by his brother Donald.
Donald I	858		Donald died of natural causes and was succeeded by his nephew Constantine, a son of Kenneth I.
Constantine I	862		Having been killed during a Viking attack (or executed shortly afterwards), Constantine was succeeded by his brother Aed. Constantine’s son Donald II later became king.
Aed	877		Having been king for only a year, Aed was slain in battle and was succeeded by Giric, whose ancestry is disputed, but may have been a son of Donald I. Aed’s son Constantine became king in 900.
Giric (may have ruled jointly with close relative Eochaid)	878		Giric is thought to have been expelled from the kingdom, but information is lacking. He was succeeded by Constantine I’s son Donald.
Donald II	889		Having been killed in battle (disputed circumstances) he was succeeded by his cousin Constantine, son of Aed. Donald’s son Malcolm became king in 943.
Constantine II [By this point the kings were of Alba rather than of the Picts]	900		Constantine abdicated (possibly under pressure) after a long period on the throne, and was succeeded by Malcolm, son of Donald II. Constantine’s son Indulf became king in 954.
Malcolm I	943		Malcolm was killed in battle (or?) and succeeded by Indulf. Malcolm’s son Dub became king in 962, and his other son Kenneth became king in 967.
Indulf	954		On his death, possibly in battle with Vikings, he was succeeded by Dub, son of Malcolm I. His sons Cullen and Amlaib later became kings.
Dub (Duff) (son of MalcolmI)	962		Dub was killed in internal strife, possibly by supporters of Cuilen, who succeeded him. His son Kenneth became king in 997.
Cuilen (Colin) (son of Indulf)	967		Cullen was succeeded by Kenneth. Cuilen was probably killed by Cumbrians or Strathclydians in retaliation for his own actions against their king’s family (daughter or sister)
Kenneth II (son of Malcolm I)	971		Most likely killed by his own people. Thought to have been succeeded by Amlaib, but it is possible they reigned at the same time over different regions.
Amlaib (son of Indulf)	973		TBD
Constantine III	995		TBD
Kenneth III	997		TBD
Malcolm II	1005		Malcolm was succeeded by his grandson Duncan, the son of one of Malcolm’s daughters, and he began the new dynasty.
House of Dunkeld. Male-preference succession became the norm.
Duncan I	1034		Duncan was killed while leading a punitive expedition against Moray. Despite having children, he was succeeded by MacBeth who had been a powerful noble, and was possibly a grandson of Malcolm II.
MacBeth	1040		MacBeth was killed at the Battle of Lumphanan, which was against supporters of the future Malcolm III. He was succeeded by his stepson, Lulach.
Lulach	1057		Having ruled only a few months, Lulach was assassinated and was succeeded by Malcolm, a son of Duncan I, and the most likely perpetrator.
Malcolm III His rule ushered in the Anglo-Scottish era, as he was father-in-law to Henry I and grandfather to Empress Matilda and other prominent English.	1058		Malcolm was killed in action in Northern England during a besiegement, along with his chosen heir. By election he was succeeded by his brother Donald.
Donald III (brother of Malcolm III)	1093		Donald was overthrown in May 1094 in an invasion of Anglo-Normans. He was succeeded by his nephew Duncan, who had been part of the invasion.
Duncan II (son of Malcolm III)	1094		Duncan was assassinated in December 1094, on orders from Donald, who resumed his kingship. Duncan’s son was bypassed in the succession.
Donald III restored	1094		Donald was imprisoned and died, possibly at the instigation of his nephew Edgar, who succeeded him.
Edgar (son of Malcolm III)	1097		Dying childless, Edgar had named his brother Alexander as his heir.
Alexander I (son of Malcolm III)	1107		At his death, with no legitimate issue, Alexander was succeeded by his brother David (with the backing of Henry I of England)
David I (youngest son of Malcolm III) [brought in the Normanization of government, etc]	1124		On his death from illness, David’s appointed heir, his grandson Malcolm became king. (David’s son Henry, the Earl of Huntington and father to Malcolm, died a year before David)
Malcolm IV	1153		Malcolm was of poor health, and died unmarried at age 24, to be succeeded by his brother William.
William I (William the Lion)	1165		After the longest reign of any Scottish monarch prior to the union of the crowns, William died of natural causes and was succeeded by his son Alexander.
Alexander II	1214		On his death he was succeeded by his only son, the 7 year old Alexander.
Alexander III	1249		Dying due to a fall from his horse, he was succeeded by his grand-daughter, Margaret (who was the daughter of his deceased daughter also Margaret, and who was married to King Eric of Norway)
House of Severre
Margaret (The Maid of Norway) (sometimes not recognized as a monarch due to not being inaugurated)	1286		On her death the descent from William I became extinct and there was no obvious heir. Thirteen claimants vied for the throne. Edward I of England arbitrated at the expense of having Scotland acknowledge him as overlord, and John Balliol, great grandson of William I’s brother was chosen.
Interregnum 1290-1292
House of Balliol
John Balliol	1292		With lack of success as king, Balliol was forced to abdicate by Edward I of England, and a longer interregnum began.
Interregnum 1296-1306
House of Bruce In rebellion against English overlordship the Scots elected or chose Robert of Bruce to be king. He was a great-great-great-great grandson of David I.
Robert I (the Bruce)	1306		Succeeded by his son David II (five years old)
David II	1329		Being childless, David was succeeded by his nephew Robert, son of his deceased half-sister Marjorie, who was married to Walter, High Steward of Scotland.
House of Stewart/Stuart 1371-1651
Robert II	1371		Robert II had many children (at least 28), legitimate and illegitimate. He was succeeded by his eldest son John, Earl of Carrick, who took the regnal name of Robert III.
Robert III	1390		On his death, Robert was succeeded by his second son James. His first son Robert, Duke of Rothesay had died earlier, with no issue.
James I	1406		On his assassination, James was succeeded by his six year old son James.
James II	1437		When killed by an explosion of a nearby artillery piece, James was succeeded by his eldest surviving son James.
James III	1460		On his death at the Battle of Sauchieburn (nobles’ rebellion), he was succeeded by his eldest son James (who was the figurehead leader of the rebels).
James IV The most successful Stewart monarch. He was the last British monarch to die in battle.	1488		Dying at the Battle of Flodden (against the English forces under Catherine of Aragon), he was succeeded by his eldest surviving son, the infant James.
James V	1513		On his death from illness, he was succeeded by his only surviving legitimate child, Mary, who was only 6 days old.
Mary	1542		Having married her half-cousin Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley, their child James was also a Stuart, and therefore the House of Stuart continued on his succession in 1587 when she was executed in England. She was succeeded by her son James.
James VI	1587		James was King of Scotland alone until 1603, when Elizabeth of England died, and he inherited that throne as well. This event meant there was a personal union of the crowns from that point on. He was succeeded in 1625 by his second son Charles (his eldest son the Prince of Wales predeceased him.
The following monarchs were simultaneously monarchs of England except in the period when England was a republic. Anne became the first monarch of the United Kingdom during her reign. For details of succession see the English/UK chart that follows. The monarchial numbers are those of Scotland.
Charles I
Charles II
James VII
Mary II (With William II)
Anne

Descent in the Scottish Monarchy from Duncan I whose reign commenced in 1034, to the
Acts of Union in 1707, when the independent Scotland and England and their monarchies ceased to exist.
(Also showing MacBeth and Lulach, reigning between Duncan I and Donald III)
Note that the monarchial succession of the previous House of Alpin
was complex and was not well documented and is not shown here.

Monarchs of Scotland are bolded.

Duncan I									MacBeth = Gruoch = Mormaer of Moray
Malcolm III								Donald III NI			Lulach
Duncan II	Edgar		Alexander I				David I
						Henry E of Huntington
David				William I the Lion					Malcolm IV NI
Isobel = R de B, 4^th L of A		Margaret		Alexander II
R de B, 5^th L of Annandale		Devorguilla		Alexander III
R de B,6^th L of Annandale		John Balliol		Margaret = King Eric of Norway
Robert I The Bruce		Edward Balliol (Pretender)		Margaret, Maid of Norway NI
David II
Marjorie Bruce = Walter 6^th High Steward of Scotland
Robert II (House of Stewart/Stuart)
Robert III
James I
James II
James III
James IV
James V
Mary = Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley
James VI (and I of England)
Charles I
Charles II					James VII (and II of England)
					Mary II = William II (III of England)					Anne
The reign of Anne marked the Union of Scotland and England into one sovereign nation, and also marked the end of the House of Stuart, as subsequent monarchs were of the House of Hanover.

SCOTTISH/ENGLISH CHRONOLOGICAL COMPARITIVE CHART

This chart shows side-by-side the monarchs of Scotland and England, so you can see fairly clearly who each monarch had to relate to in the neighbor country. Particularly from the 10^th century onwards, much of the politics and the events resulted from the ongoing back and forth for the border territory, and the quest for continuing Scottish independence, its loss, and its regaining. The relationships between the two monarchs at any given time, and between monarchs and the rivals of the other monarch, played key parts in the history of the two nations. Note that England (or The English) came under one ruler around the beginning of the tenth century. Prior kings in the English column are of Wessex alone, and included here as space-fillers. Scotland or Alba had a much more complicated history, and it is unclear as to when all or practically all of the present extent of Scotland came under one ruler. YELLOW = ANGLO-SAXON, EXCEPT DANISH WHERE NOTED. LIGHT GREEN = HOUSE OF ALPIN, DARKER GREEN = HOUSE OF DUNKELD, BROWN = HOUSE OF BRUCE, PINK = HOUSE OF NORMANDY AND HOUSE OF BLOIS, PALE YELLOW = HOUSE OF PLANTAGENET (including Anjou, Lancaster and York), PURPLE = HOUSE OF TUDOR AND HOUSE OF GREY.

This chart does not show descent or relationship of a monarch to those before or after.

Scottish Monarch	1/4 Century beginning	English Monarch
843 Kenneth I [House of Alpin]	825	839 Aethelwulf of Wessex
858 Donald I 862 Constantine I	850	858 Aethelbald of Wessex 860 Aethelbert of Wessex 865 Aethelred I of Wessex 871 Alfred the Great of Wessex
877 Aed 878 Giric 889 Donald II	875	899 Edward the Elder
900 Constantine II	900	924 Athelstan (first true king of all the English, on the defeat of the York Vikings)
943 Malcolm I	925	939 Edmund I 946 Eadred
954 Indulf 962 Dub 967 Cuilen 971 Kenneth II	950	955 Eadwig 959 Edgar the Peaceable
995 Constantine III 997 Kenneth III	975	975 Edward the Martyr 978 Athelred the Unready
1005 Malcolm II	1000	1013 Sveyn Forkbeard [Danish] 1014 Athelred the Unready (restored) 1016 Edmund Ironside 1016 Cnut the Great [Danish]
1034 Duncan I [House of Dunkeld] 1040 MacBeth	1025	1035 Harold Harefoot [Danish] 1040 Harthacnut [Danish] 1042 Edward the Confessor
1057 Lulach 1058 Malcolm III	1050	Early 1066 Harold II
		1066 William I (House of Normandy)
1093 Donald III 1094 Duncan II 1097 Edgar	1075	1087 William II Rufus
1107 Alexander I 1124 David I	1100	1100 Henry I Beauclerc
	1125	1135 Stephen of Blois
1153 Malcolm IV 1165 William I The Lion	1150	1154 Henry II (House of Plantagenet)
	1175	1189 Richard I The Lionhearted 1199 John Lackland
1214 Alexander II	1200	1216 Henry III
1249 Alexander III	1225
	1250	1272 Edward I
1286 Margaret 1290 Interregnum 1292 John Balliol 1296 Interregnum	1275
1306 Robert I The Bruce (House of Bruce)	1300	1307 Edward II
1329 David II	1325	1327 Edward III
1371 Robert II (House of Stewart/Stuart)	1350	1377 Richard II
	1375	1399 Henry IV
1406 James I	1400	1413 Henry V 1422 Henry VI
1437 James II	1425
1460 James III	1450	1461 Edward IV 1470 Henry VI restored 1471 Edward IV restored
1488 James IV	1475	1483 Edward V 1483 Richard III
		1485 Henry VII (House of Tudor)
1513 James V	1500	1509 Henry VIII
1542 Mary	1525	1547 Edward VI
1567 James VI	1550	1553 Jane (House of Grey) 1553 Mary I (House of Tudor) 1558 Elizabeth
	1575
	1600
UNION OF THE CROWNS IN 1603. 1603 James VI of Scotland becomes also James I of England. 1625 Charles I 1649 Interregnum (Commonwealth) 1660 Charles II 1685 James VII (Scotland)/II (England) 1688 Interregnum 1689 Mary II and William II (of Scotland)/III (of England) 1702 Anne
1707 Acts of Union, join Scotland and England together as the United Kingdom of Great Britain, with Anne becoming the first monarch.

PART 3
This chart is a visual depiction of the succession described in detail in Part 1A, but also depicts the Scottish descent, as well as antecedents of the Norman line. Kenneth I is commonly considered to be the founder of Scotland, though he was called King of the Picts. In the early years the kingship alternated between the two branches of Alpin’s family.

Descent Chart of British Monarchs rev Feb 6, 2024

Wessex, then Anglo-Saxons

Danes

Normans

Early Scots

Norman Scots

Egbert

Alpin

De Bruis family came from Normandy soon after the Norman Invasion of 1066. Origins farther back unknown. Evolved in Scotland into the Bruce family.

1

Aethelbald NI

Aethelbert NI

Aethelred I

Alfred the Great

843 Kenneth I MacAlpin

858 Donald I

878 Giric

2

Edward the Elder

Harthacnut I

862 Constantine I

877 Aed

3

Athelstan 1 NI

Edmund I 2

Eadred 3 NI

Gorm the Old

Rollo the Viking Founder of Normandy

889 Donald II

900 Constantine II

943 Malcolm I

954 Indulf

967 Cuilen

995 Constantine III

4

Edgar the Peaceful 5

Eadwig 4 NI

Harold Bluetooth

William Longsword

962 Dub (Duff)

971 Kenneth II

5

Edward the Martyr 6 NI

Ethelred the Unready 7

Sweyn Forkbeard 8

Richard I

997 Kenneth III

1005Malcolm II

6

Edmund II Ironside 9

Edward the Confessor 13 NI

Emma of Normandy, d of Richard I

Cnut 10

Richard II

Beatrice or Bethoc

7

Edward the Exile

1066 Harold II 14 NI

Harold Harefoot 11 NI

Harthacnut 12 NI

Richard III

Robert I

1034 Duncan I HOUSE OF DUNKELD

8

Edgar Atheling 15

Margaret m Malcolm of Scotland

Norman Monarchs and Descendants

1040 MacBeth

Robert de Bruis 1^st L of Annandale

1066 William the Conqueror (son of Robert I)

1057 Lulach

9

Edith (Matilda) m Henry I

Robert Curthose

Richard NI

William II NI

Henry I

Adela

1058Malcolm III

1093 Donald III

Robert de Bruis 2^nd L of A

10

Empress Matilda

Wm Adelin NI

Stephen

C

D

E

F

Wm de Bruis 3^rd L of A

11

Henry II

Eustace & Wm

1153 Malcolm IV NI

1165 William I

12

Henry

Richard I

John

1214 Alexander II

Robert de Bruis 4^th L of A

13

Henry III

1249 Alexander III

Robert de Bruis 5^th L of A

14

Edward I

1292 John Balliol

Robert de Bruis 6^th L of A

15

Edward II

1306 Robert I the Bruce 7^th L of A

16

Edward III

1329 David II

Marjorie Bruce, m Walter, Steward of Scotland

17

Edward

Lionel D of Clarence

John of Gaunt D of Lancaster

Edmund D of York

1371 Robert II

18

Richard II

Philippa

John Beaufort

Henry IV

Richard E of Cambridge m Anne Moritimer (see left)

Robert III

19

Roger Moritimer

John Beaufort

Henry V

Richard D of York

James I

20

Anne Mortimer

Margaret Beufort

Henry VI

Edward IV

James II

21

Henry VII

Elizabeth M Henry VII

Richard III

Edward V

James III

22

Arthur

Henry VIII

Mary Tudor

Margaret Tudor m James IV

James IV

23

Edward VI

Mary I

Elizabeth I

Frances

James V

24

Jane

Mary Q of Scots m. Henry Stuart. Lord Darnley

25

James I and VI

26

Charles I

Elizabeth

27

Charles II

Mary

James II & VII

Sophia

28

William III

Mary II

Anne

Excluded Catholic lines

George I

29

George II

30

Frederick

31

George III

32

George IV

William IV

Edward D of Kent

33

Victoria

34

Edward VII

35

George V

36

Edward VIII

George VI

Gloucester line

Kent line

37

Elizabeth II

Margaret line

38

Charles III

Anne

Andrew

Edward

39

William

Harry

Peter Philips

Zara Phillips

Beatrice

Eugenie

Louise

James

40

G

C

L

A

L

S

I

M

L

L

Sienna

August

Ernest

Wales

Sussex

Phillips

Tindall

Mapelli Mozzi

Brooksbank

PART 4

Scottish and English Royal Ancestry of CHARLES III. MONARCHS OF SCOTLAND, ENGLAND AND UK ARE IN CAPITALS. House (Dynasty) names in bold. Monarchs not shown are not known to be ancestors of Charles. All persons shown are ancestors.
Norman Scots (Bruce & Stuart)	Normans	Ancient Scots (Alpin & Dunkeld)	Wessex Anglo-Saxons
	?	Alpin K of Dai Riata	Egbert K of Wessex 802
	?	KENNETH I 843	Aethelwulf K of Wessex
	?	CONSTANTINE I	ALFRED (The Great)
	?	DONALD II	EDWARD (The Elder)
	D. Rollo the Viking of Normandy 911	MALCOLM I	EDMUND I
	D. William Longsword	KENNETH II	EDGAR (The Peaceful)
	D. Richard I	MALCOLM II	AETHELRED (The Unready)
	D. Richard II	Bethoc = Crinan of Dunkeld	EDMUND II (Ironside)
	D. Robert I	DUNCAN I Dunkeld	Edward the Exile
	WILLIAM I	MALCOLM III =	= Saint Margaret (Margaret of Wessex)
?	HENRY I =	= Matilda of Scotland (Good Queen Maud)
Adam de Bruse	The Empress MATILDA (Maude)
Robert I de Bruis	HENRY II (Plantagenet)
Robert II de Bruis	JOHN (Lackland)
William de Bruis	HENRY III
Robert de Bruis	EDWARD I
Robert de Bruis	EDWARD II
Robert de Bruis	EDWARD III
ROBERT (the Bruce) R. 1306-1329	Lionel, D of Clarence	Edmund, D of York	John of Gaunt, D of Lancaster
MARJORIE BRUCE	Philippa of Clarence
ROBERT II (Stuart)	Roger, E of March
ROBERT III	Anne Mortimer	Richard, E of Cambridge	John Beaufort, E of Somerset
JAMES I	Richard, D of York		John Beaufort, D of Somerset
JAMES II	EDWARD IV		Margaret Beaufort
JAMES III	Elizabeth of York =		= HENRY VII
JAMES IV =	= Margaret Tudor
JAMES V
MARY
JAMES VI of Scotland & I of England
Elizabeth Stuart
Sophia, Electress of Hanover
GEORGE I
GEORGE II
Frederick, Prince of Wales
GEORGE III
Pr Edward, D of Kent
VICTORIA
EDWARD VII (Saxe-Coburg & Gotha, later Windsor)
GEORGE V
GEORGE VI
ELIZABETH II
CHARLES III (Mountbatten-Windsor)
William, Prince of Wales (heir apparent)
Pr George of Wales (heir apparent to heir apparent)

PART 5

DESCENT FROM KING GEORGE V, TO SHOW THE UPPER PORTION OF THE PRESENT LINE OF SUCCESSION
Last revised July 2023

DESCENT FROM GEORGE V OF THE UNITED KINGDOM
As compiled by William H. White for own use, rev July 12, 2023

The chart is on the next page so that it can all be on one page.

Note that as the depiction progresses farther and farther down the line, the note NBP may appear. This “Not being pursued” indicates that the people who could populate these spaces are not being depicted individually, nor are any issue they may have, due to being of lessening interest and increasing remoteness from the central royal family.

Coloured backgrounds indicate persons who are or were “royal”, i.e. entitled to the style His/Her Royal Highness and/or the title Prince/Princess, by descent. Note however, that a person without the style may still be included in the informal term “royal family”. In the modern circumstance, Prince Harry has been requested to not use the royal style, but he remains a prince, and the status of his two children is unclear, i.e. are they entitled to use the style HRH or not?

GEORGE V	EDWARD VIII Duke of Windsor (NI)
	GEORGE VI	ELIZABETH II	48 CHARLES III	82 Pr WILLIAM Prince of Wales	13 Pr GEORGE 15 Pr CHARLOTTE 18 Pr LOUIS
				84 Pr HARRY Duke of Sussex	19 Pr ARCHIE 21 Pr LILIBET
			60 Pr ANDREW Duke of York	88 Pr BEATRICE	21 SIENNA MM
				90 Pr EUGENIE	21 AUGUST B 23 ERNEST B
			64 Pr EDWARD Duke of Edinburgh	07 Pr JAMES Earl of Wessex	NIY
				03 Pr LOUISE	NIY
			50 ANNE Pr Royal	77 PETER PHILLIPS	10 SAVANNAH 12 ISLA
				81 ZARA TINDALL	14 MIA, 18 LENA 21 LUCAS
		Pr. MARGARET	61 DAVID ARMSTRONG-JONES Earl of Snowden	99 CHARLES ARMSTRONG-JONES Viscount Linley	TBD
				02 MARGARITA ARMSTRONG-JONES	NBP
			64 L. SARAH CHATTO	96 SAMUEL CHATTO	NBP
				99 ARTHUR CHATTO	NBP
	Pr. HENRY Duke of Gloucester	41 Pr WILLIAM (NI)
		44 Pr RICHARD Duke of Gloucester	74 Alexander W Earl of Ulster	07 Xan W Lord Culloden	TBD
			77 L. Davina (Lewis) div	2 children	NBP
			80 L. Rose Gilman	2 children	NBP
	Pr. GEORGE Duke of Kent	35 Pr EDWARD Duke of Kent	62 George W Earl of St Andrews	88 Edward W Lord Downpatrick	TBD
				92 L. Marina W 95 L. Amelia W	NBP
			70 Ld Nicholas W	2 children	NBP
			64 L. Helen Taylor	4 children	NBP
		36 Pr Alexandra	64 James Ogilvy	94 Flora 96 Alexander	NBP
			66 Marina Ogilvy	90 Zenouska Mowatt 93 Christian Mowatt	NBP
	Pr. John (NI)
	Pr. Mary Princess Royal & C of Harewood	23 Geo Lascelles E of Harewood	50 David L E of Harewood	4 children	NBP
			53 James L	4 children	NBP
			55 Jeremy L	4 children	NBP
		24 Gerald Lascelles	53 Henry L	2 children	NBP
			62 Martin L	1 child	NBP

PART 6

Letters Patent/Common Usage

Letters Patent are orders issued by the monarch and which have legislative effect. For example, the monarch might grant arms to a noble, or might issue directives as to who is to be styled a prince. If an order concerning a way of doing things has been in effect for a long period of time, that process becomes common usage, but it still retains its validity based on the letters patent that proclaimed it.

The Letters Patent of King George the Fifth in 1917 have had enduring effect, and limited the use of royal styles and rights. Henceforth, until modified, princely dignity was restricted to:

· children of the sovereign

· grandchildren of the sovereign in the male line and

· a greatgrandson of the sovereign who is the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales.

The letters patent of 1917 have remained in effect as general usage, but specific exceptions or differences have subsequently been proclaimed:

· In 1947 King George VI by letters patent specifically granted the style of His Royal Highness to Philip Mountbatten on the day before his marriage to Princess Elizabeth. On the day of marriage, he was created Duke of Edinburgh, therefore became HRH The Duke of Edinburgh from that point onwards. Princely status was also extended to any children they would have, which made Charles and Anne prince and princess from birth, with the titles Prince of Edinburgh and Princess of Edinburgh, which they carried until their mother ascended the throne in 1952. Their later children, Andrew and Edward, were born after Elizabeth became sovereign, and they held princely status by the already existing 1917 letters patent.

· In 1957 Queen Elizabeth created her husband Philip a prince of the United Kingdom.

· In 1958 Queen Elizabeth created her son Charles Prince of Wales.

· In XXXX Queen Elizabeth II, by letters patent, specifically granted princely style to the additional children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales, thus making Charlotte and Louis princess and prince.

Once granted under the terms of these letters patent, princely styles are not rescinded, unless by further letters patent. For example, if a person is a prince by virtue of being a child of a sovereign, he or she does not lose that style and dignity when the parent sovereign dies. For example Princess Alexandra was the daughter of King George V, who died in 1936, and she has this status for life.

In the specific case of the children of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, there had arisen some controversy in they did not have at birth the titles of prince and princess. This is because at the time of their births, they were the great-grandchildren of the monarch in the male line. The letters patent of George V and Elizabeth II had previously limited the princely styles for great-grandchildren to the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales, in this case William. Harry was the second son of the Prince of Wales, and therefore his children Archie and Lilibet did not qualify at birth. When Elizabeth died, and Charles became sovereign, Archie and Lilibet immediately became grandchildren of the monarch in the male line, and became Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet.

PART 7
Current Princes and Princesses

The following are the current princes and princesses of the United Kingdom, listed in order of the line of succession. Unless noted all princes and princesses use the style “His/Her Royal Highness”

This list does not include princesses who are styled as such due to their marriage to a prince. These are listed separately following this table.

Prince or Princess of the Blood Royal	Justification on creation, and subsequently.	Female Spouses who are princesses by marriage, NOT in their own right.
Prince William, Prince of Wales.	From birth, as grandchild in the male line of the monarch (Elizabeth II) and subsequently from 2022 as Prince of Wales.	Catherine, Princess of Wales, is Princess William.
Prince George (of Wales)	From birth, as the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales.
Princess Charlotte (of Wales)	From birth, by letters patent, as a child of the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales.
Prince Louis (of Wales)	From birth, by letters patent, as a child of the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales.
Prince Henry, known as Harry, Duke of Sussex [Does not use the style HRH]	From birth, as a grandchild in the male line of the sovereign (Elizabeth II)	Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, is Princess Henry [Does not use the style HRH].
Prince Archie (of Sussex) Title is apparently used only for official purposes, not in everyday life.	From 2022, on the accession of Charles III, as a grandchild in the male line of the sovereign.
Princess Lilibet (of Sussex) Title is apparently used only for official purposes, not in everyday life.	From 2022, on the accession of Charles III, as a grandchild in the male line of the sovereign.
Prince Andrew, Duke of York Has apparently ceased using the HRH style.	From birth, as child of the monarch (Elizabeth II)	Note that Prince Andrew’s ex-wife lost her status as princess by marriage when they divorced.
Princess Beatrice, Mrs Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi	From birth, as grandchild in the male line of the monarch (Elizabeth II)
Princess Genevieve, Mrs Jack Brooksbank	From birth, as grandchild in the male line of the monarch (Elizabeth II)
Prince Edward, Duke of Edinburgh	From birth, as child of the monarch (Elizabeth II)	Sophie, Duchess of Edinburgh, is Princess Edward.
Prince James, Earl of Wessex (Princely style and title not used)	From birth, as grandchild in the male line of the monarch (Elizabeth II)
Princess Louise of Edinburgh, known as Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor. (Princely style and title not used)	From birth, as grandchild in the male line of the monarch (Elizabeth II)
Anne, Princess Royal, previously styled as Princess Anne of Edinburgh, then as The Princess Anne	From birth by letters patent of George VI
Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester	From birth, as grandchild in the male line of the monarch (George V)	Brigitte, Duchess of Gloucester, is Princess Richard.
Prince Edward, Duke of Kent	From birth, as grandchild in the male line of the monarch (George V)	Katharine, Duchess of Kent, is Princess Edward.
Prince Michael (of Kent)	From birth, as grandchild in the male line of the monarch (George V)	Baroness Marie-Christine is Princess Michael of Kent (the only person currently using this style)
Princess Alexandra the Hon. Lady Ogilvy, previously styled as Princess Alexandra of Kent	From birth, as grandchild in the male line of the monarch (George V)

PART 8
Princesses by Marriage, and Honorifics for Husbands of Royal Women

As with nobility, to be discussed later in this article, women who marry a British prince take on the styles and dignities of that prince. For example, Meghan Markle, upon marrying Prince Harry, became Princess Harry. This is a straight analogy to a woman marrying a man and taking the style Mrs. James Smith. This has decreased in usage in recent years, so that such a woman might more likely call herself Joanne Smith or Mrs. Joanne Smith, or not even take on his last name at all! Not so with British royalty and nobility, in which the standard remains. Note that a princess by marriage does not become Princess Firstname. Only princesses by descent do that. None of the princesses listed below may properly be referred to as Princess First Name, even though the popular press and many people do so. For example, “Princess Catherine” and “Princess Meghan” are incorrect.

Current princesses by marriage

Catherine, Princess of Wales
Meghan, Duchess of Sussex
Sophie, Duchess of Edinburgh
Brigitte, Duchess of Gloucester
Katharine, Duchess of Kent
Princess Michael of Kent

Note that women who are married to a prince also receive the HRH prefix, unless it is specifically not allowed, but they lose their courtesy style of “princess” and HRH upon divorce. For example Sarah Ferguson remains Duchess of York, but is not HRH Sarah, The Duchess of York. Widows DO retain their honorifics.

Note also that men do not take on their wife’s styles and dignities. For example, Angus Ogilvy, on marrying Princess Alexandra, did not become a prince himself. The sovereign might grant a title of nobility to such a husband, but that has not happened since Antony Armstrong-Jones, who had married Princess Margaret, was in 1961 created Earl of Snowden.

PART 9 Other Royal Topics

Evolution out of Royal Status

In order that royal status does not unduly expand as royal persons have children, this status extends at a maximum only to the grandchildren of the sovereign, and this only in the male line. The exception is in the line of the Prince of Wales, in which case his son’s children (who are great-grandchildren of the sovereign) also have royal status.

Noble Titles and Royalty

Ducal titles automatically accompany the throne. The monarch is Duke of Lancaster, which is actually a title that merged with the crown in the 14^th century, but is still used to some extent in relation to Lancashire and the duchy estates that financially support to monarch. Secondly, in the Channel Islands, the monarch also holds the title Duke of Normandy, but it is not applicable or used within a wider setting.

The eldest son who is heir apparent automatically becomes Duke of Cornwall. This title can only be held by the eldest surviving son who is the heir apparent. If the eldest son dies with children, it does not pass to that oldest child, in which case it merges with the crown. If the eldest son and heir apparent were to die without issue, it can pass to his brother, if he becomes the new heir apparent. This will be impossible if there is a sister in between. The title cannot go to a daughter of the monarch. The title can merge with the crown if there is a queen regnant and she will be the de facto duke, though would likely not use the title. The dukedom has lands and income, which goes to the heir apparent, whether or not they are eligible to hold the title itself. The annual income to the heir apparent is several million pounds, which is not taxable; however Charles did pay tax voluntarily. There are several other rights, obligations and benefits.

Traditionally, i.e. commonly since at least 1917, the sons of the monarch (other than the Prince of Wales) and the male-line grandsons of the monarch become dukes on the occasion of marriages. For example the second, third and fourth surviving sons of George V became the Dukes of York, Gloucester and Kent respectively. The second son of Elizabeth II, Prince Andrew, became the Duke of York. Contrary to tradition however, the third son, Prince Edward became an Earl rather than a duke, which many speculated to be with the aim of creating him Duke of Edinburgh later in life, which did in fact happen. Note that when the title is bestowed, it is accompanied also by lesser ranked titles as well. As will be better described below, this enables the eldest son of the created duke to have a courtesy title. In the case of Prince Edward, who was created Earl of Wessex on his marriage, he also was created Viscount Severn. When Edward’s son James was born he took on the courtesy title Viscount Severn. If there is another subsidiary title, that may be used by the eldest son of the eldest son.

Note also that when titles are bestowed on the monarch’s sons they become in most cases a royal duke, which is a level that takes precedence over the non-royal dukedoms. As with other aspects of royal status, the royal dukedom can be inherited one time, and afterwards becomes an inheritable non-royal dukedom.

Note that in 2023 the dukedom of Edinburgh was conferred on Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex, with the stipulation that this be non-hereditary. This is a first, and was done without any announcement of why it would be this way. On Edward’s death the title reverts to the Crown, conceivably to then go to Princess Charlotte or Prince Louis, or even to Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor who was especially close to the late Duke of Edinburgh. All of this is speculation.

The present royal dukes, with subsidiary titles:

Prince William, Prince of Wales	As Eldest son of the monarch, and heir apparent (from 2022): Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles, Prince and Great Steward of Scotland. The duchy of Cornwall is land-holding and is the principal source of revenue to the Duke of Cornwall. All holders of the title Duke of Cornwall are considered to be of the same creation, but there are some ambiguities and uncertainties. Some sources state that Charles is the 23^rd of the 1336 creation. It is likely that the title Duke of Rothesay is similar. William is the 24^th Duke of Rothesay.
	On his marriage in 2011: Duke of Cambridge (1^st in the 5^th creation), Earl of Strathearn, Baron Carrickfergus. These titles merge with the crown if he becomes king. If he dies before succeeding to the throne, the titles would be inherited in the normal manner by his elder son George.
Prince Henry (known as Harry)	On his marriage in 2018: Duke of Sussex (1^st in the 2^nd creation), Earl of Dumbarton, Baron Kilkeel. On his death his titles will be inherited by his son Archie.
Prince Andrew	On his marriage in 1986: Duke of York (1^st in the 8^th creation), Earl of Inverness, Baron Killyleagh. Having no sons, these titles will revert to the throne on his death, i.e. become extinct, and be available for re-conferring. Commonly over time this dukedom has gone to the second son of the sovereign, and there is speculation that eventually Prince Louis will become Duke of York.
Prince Edward	By letters patent in April of 2023, and according the wishes of his late father, Edward was made Duke of Edinburgh (1^st in the 4^th creation), but unlike other dukedoms it is not hereditary. Previously, on the occasion of his marriage in 1999 Edward had been made Earl of Wessex, and Viscount Severn. In 2019 he was separately created Earl of Forfar. Currently his son James carries the courtesy title Earl of Wessex, and will eventually inherit all of his father’s titles other than the dukedom.
Prince Richard	At his father’s death in 1974 Richard inherited his titles, these being Duke of Gloucester (2^nd in the 5^th creation), Earl of Ulster and Baron Culloden. His father Prince Henry, son of George V, had received the titles in 1928. Presently Richard’s son and grandson use the courtesy titles Earl of Ulster and Lord Culloden. On Richard’s death, his eldest son will inherit these titles but they will no longer be royal.
Prince Edward	At his father’s death in 1942, Edward inherited his titles, these being Duke of Kent (2^nd in the 2^nd creation), Earl of St. Andrews and Baron Downpatrick. The latter titles are used by courtesy by Edward’s son and grandson. On his death his titles will be inherited by his eldest son, but they will no longer be royal.

“The Royal Family”

This is an informal term used to include the monarch and his/her consort, as well as the princes and princesses, but also several relatives who do not hold princely status but are in close association with the monarch. Note particularly that relatives of those who marry royalty do not themselves become royalty, nor do they become members of the royal family, nor do they receive noble titles. Thus the parents and sister of the Princess of Wales may have close association with the royal family but they did not gain titles, nor are they members of the royal family. Similarly, the children of the Queen Consort by her first marriage did not gain titles or royal status. This does not mean that they are excluded from socializing as part of the extended family.

The term “working royals” is a relatively new term to include those members of the family who carry out official duties on behalf of the monarch, and therefore receive benefits from doing so.

PART 10
Table of Relationships

In the preceding sections, some mention was made of cousins being “removed”. In the modern world there is confusion over what is, for example, a second cousin, etc. This chart will illustrate the scheme to which I adhere in describing relationships. The chart can be expanded backwards or forwards in time. Note that plain cousins, i.e., with no removals are all the same generation as the reference person. Note that other schemes that clash with this one are readily seen on the internet. These generally seem to originate in the USA.

It can be easier to envision this or apply it to the real world by thinking in terms of your plain first cousin is someone who has a same grandparent as you do. Similarly, your plain second cousin has a great grandparent in common with you.

This chart can be used in real situations by adding actual names but does not allow for multiple people in the same degree of relationship. As a point of interest, I myself have only one sibling, with her daughters being my only two nieces. I also only have one first cousin, and his two sons are my only first cousins once removed, with no knowledge beyond that. I am assuming that I have second and third cousins and so on but have no knowledge of them.

In-laws: My wife of course has her own set of relationships (which are much more extensive than mine), and in common language, we mutually take on each other’s relatives as in-laws. For example, my wife’s nephew is commonly thought of as well as being my nephew, as are my two nieces being considered to be my wife’s as well. These in-law relationships more commonly are also expressed in the upward direction. For example, my two nieces have referred to my wife as being their aunt. They might refer to me as being their uncle even though we are not actually blood relatives.

In this chart, you start with yourself or whoever you are figuring from the standpoint of and go from there. The rows are “the same generation”.

GREAT GRAND-PARENT				GREAT-GREAT (or GREAT GRAND) UNCLE/AUNT
GRAND-PARENT			GREAT (OR GRAND) UNCLE/AUNT	THIRD COUSIN twice removed upwards
PARENT		AUNT/UNCLE	SECOND COUSIN once removed upwards	THIRD COUSIN once removed upwards
PERSON OF REFERENCE or YOU	SIBLING	FIRST COUSIN	SECOND COUSIN	THIRD COUSIN
CHILD	NEPHEW/NIECE	FIRST COUSIN once removed	SECOND COUSIN once removed	THIRD COUSIN once removed
GRANDCHILD	GREAT (or GRAND) NEPHEW/NIECE	FIRST COUSIN twice removed	SECOND COUSIN twice remove	THIRD COUSIN twice removed
GREAT GRANDCHILD	GREAT GREAT (or GREAT GRAND) NEPHEW/NIECE	FIRST COUSIN thrice removed	SECOND COUSIN thrice removed	THIRD COUSIN thrice removed

It must also be noted that as one goes back in time (back in generations) there is an increased likelihood of encountering someone who fits into more than one spot in the table. This results from marriages between cousins, either at the same generational level or across them.

PART 11
NOBILITY in the UK

In social media and indeed in most forms of communication, there does seem to be the impression that new dukes and earls, etc are being designated as a fairly common occurrence. The fact of the matter is that the last time a non-royal person received an hereditary title of nobility was four decades ago, in 1984, and that was a very isolated outlier. It just does not happen anymore, though there is no law against it. Yes there are still barons being created but these titles are not hereditary, and therefore not passed along to offspring or other family members. Now that I have gotten that expressed, let’s have a look at British nobility, as there are plenty of hereditary titles still in existence and unless somehow legislated out of existence there will be a dwindling but significant number for decades and centuries to come.

The terms “nobility” and “peerage” are more or less equivalent today. Today the term peerage is the more common one, and nobles in general are often referred to as peers. While the term “peer” means equal in everyday language, it also does within the nobility to some extent. Despite the various ranks, explained below, all nobles were at one time able to take part in the House of Lords, and to that degree were therefore peers to each other.

There are several components to the Peerage in the present day United Kingdom. Due to the fact that some hereditary peerages originated several hundred years ago and still exist, there are peerages today coming out of the constituent countries of the United Kingdom. Thus there are the Peerage of England, The Peerage of Scotland, The Peerage of Ireland, the Peerage of Great Britain, and today the Peerage of the United Kingdom. When the United Kingdom was formed, the older Peerages were not abolished, they have been continued on into the present day The older Peerage systems may have rules and conventions that differ from those of the Peerage of the United Kingdom with this being especially true of the Peerage of Scotland. In this article I am not delving into the peculiarities of the Scottish Peerage. These older peerages still exist because many of their titles have not yet become extinct, and if peers continue to marry, and continue to have sons, could go on for centuries to come.

In the modern United Kingdom system of government, there are two components to the legislative branch, these being the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Only peers (nobles) can attend and take part in the House of Lords and conversely only non-peers can take part in the House of Commons. While at one time all peers were entitled to be part of the House of Lords, in the twentieth century most hereditary peers became excluded, other than a few chosen to represent the others, and with the work of the House of Lords devolving upon the life peers (life barons).

Note again that my discourse here relates primarily to the peerage of the United Kingdom and the preceding Great Britain and its predecessor the peerage of England. The peerage of Scotland has some different rules and different titles, with a much greater provision for females to hold peerage titles in Scotland. Note therefore that, outside of these Scottish hereditary titles, it is very rare for hereditary peerages to be inherited by or through females. This has the effect of causing hereditary titles to gradually head towards extinction, as a title holder who has either no children or only has daughters , and has no brother will have no one to pass the title on to.

In the distant past the nobles actually held control over areas of the country and in theory were supporters of the monarch in terms of soldiers and taxes. In reality there were many who were less supportive, and instead enemies or close to it. Together with the church, the nobles and the monarch governed the nation. Over time the titles of nobility have evolved into rewards for great accomplishments, and even more recently to create political allies in the House of Lords. It is not my intent to write a history of noble titles. While many titles of nobility contain references to geographical areas, these do not today connote any control over those areas, and certainly no requirement to reside within the borders of those areas. The one exception to this is the title Duke of Cornwall, which does have an actual duchy or land-holding attached to it, and is always held by the male heir to the throne.

Suffice it to say that until the beginning of the twentieth century many hereditary titles of nobility were created, and passed down, usually only in the male line, so that there are large numbers of titles created in the past that are still extant. Extant is a word that essentially means “still existing”. From around the beginning of the twentieth century, fewer and fewer hereditary titles have been bestowed, with none at all in this present century. The exception to this is within the royal family as briefly described above. Today there is one level of nobility in which new creations are being made but not hereditary, that being the baron. These non-hereditary baronies are referred to as Life Baronies.

In recent centuries, the bestowal of noble titles became increasingly political, and in the control of the ruling party. It was true that some people were ennobled due to their great accomplishments, but to a great extent the creations were to bolster the numbers of the ruling party in the House of Lords.

Levels

While nobility itself is a layer of society in the UK, there are within it several ranks or levels. From the top down these are:

Duke/Duchess
Marquess/Marchioness
Earl/Countess
Viscount/Viscountess
Baron/Baroness

Earls and barons are the oldest levels in the British system. Earls were at one time the highest level of nobility but from the time of Edward III dukedoms began to be bestowed, and with higher status. Of all the levels the Marquess is the rarest, with the Viscount also being relatively uncommon other than as a subsidiary title.

Other than life peerages at the baron level, noble titles are hereditary (with extremely rare exceptions), but almost always according to male-absolute primogeniture. In other words they cannot be passed down to a daughter or other female relative. Because some of the still-existing titles date from medieval times, there are a variety of conditions that are attached regarding inheritance, and these vary from one to another. Due to the fact that the vast majority of noble titles are only passed down in the male line, there are constantly over time titles that become extinct.

Note that if a title becomes extinct, that title can be created again and bestowed on someone not even remotely connected to the family that had it previously. Here is a fictitious example:

In 1678 John Smith is made Earl of Cumberland. He is the 1^st Earl of Cumberland. Having a son, that son eventually inherits the title and becomes the 2^nd Earl of Cumberland, and in turn eventually his son becomes the 3^rd Earl of Cumberland, and so on. Now, let’s say the 3^rd Earl does not have any children, or only daughters, and there is no provision for inheritance by brothers, nephews, etc., that title becomes extinct. Someday in the future, but likely not right away, the sovereign can resurrect the title Earl of Cumberland and bestow it on someone who has little or no connection to the family that held that title in the past. So let’s say it is now 1856, and the Queen sees that there is no Earl of Cumberland, and likes that title. She bestows it on Andrew Jones, who therefore becomes the 1^st Earl of Cumberland in the Second Creation.

Courtesy Titles

Commonly when a creation of a noble title is made, there will be the primary title, but also one or more secondary ones at a lower level. This is most common with the higher titles of Duke and Earl, but can occur with any title other than Baron, which does not have anything lower to confer. Secondary titles can become so in another way, i.e. a noble gains by inheritance another title to more or less add to his portfolio, so to speak.

Secondary or subsidiary titles are not used by the holder of the primary title, except in very formal settings. Note that a noble who holds more than one title at the primary rank generally will amalgamate the two into one informal title. For example, the Earl of Somewhere also becomes the Earl of Anywhere, and becomes known as the Earl of Somewhere and Anywhere.

Subsidiary titles are available for courtesy use by the eldest son of the primary title holder. For example, if the Duke of Somewhere is also the Earl of Anyplace, his eldest son may style himself as Earl of Anyplace, even though he is not that at all. Note that he cannot style himself as The Earl of Anyplace.

If the primary title holder has more than one subsidiary title, the second one is by extension available to the eldest son of the eldest son. It is even possible for a great grandson to have a courtesy title if his great grandfather has three subsidiary titles.

Note that there are exceptions to the generality that the eldest son uses the first subsidiary title, and instead uses a lower one. This can be for historical family reasons, or more commonly occurs if the first subsidiary title has the same name as the primary title. For example, if the Duke of Centrecaster is also the Earl of Centrecaster, the eldest son will likely not use the earldom title, but instead opt for the next one down, if there is one, to avoid confusion.

Note that sons other than the eldest do not use the father’s subsidiary titles, but in general are referred to as Lord First Name Last Name for sons of Dukes and Marquesses, or The Hon. First Name Last Name, for sons of Earls, Viscounts and Barons. Note that eldest sons of nobles who have no subsidiary titles use the same form as non-eldest sons.

All daughters of Dukes and Marquesses use the form: The Lady First Name Last Name. Daughters of Earls, Viscounts, and Barons use the same style as the sons, i.e. The Hon. First Name Last Name.

Duke

There are 28 non-royal dukedoms extant in the UK today. Many of these originate before the UK was formed and are therefore variously from the former peerages of England, Scotland and Ireland. Of the 28 extant dukedoms, there are two cases in which one person holds two of them and one in which the holder has three dukedoms. In these cases the holder may be referred to in the form such as Duke of Hamilton and Brandon. There is also a case in which the holder has two titles of the same name, one in the peerage of Scotland and one in the United Kingdom, that being the Duke of Argyll.

Royal dukedoms are discussed separately above but keep in mind that most of them potentially evolve into non-royal dukedoms.

The number of non-royal dukedoms is now constantly decreasing as dukedoms become extinct, and no new ones being created. Currently the Duke of Westminster has no heir, and the title is expected to become extinct. The last non-royal dukedoms created were in 1874 (Westminster), 1876 (Gordon) and 1892 (Argyll), however the latter two were to persons who were already dukes. The royal dukedom created in 1900, Duke of Fife, has become over time a non-royal dukedom.

Both the wives of dukes and women who hold dukedoms in their own right are called duchesses. Currently there are no duchesses in their own right.

Marquess

The earliest marquessates were created in the 14^th century but the earliest still extant, the Marquessate of Winchester, dates from 1551. Currently there are 35 marquessates still extant that are not subsidiary to a dukedom. The last one created was in 1936, that being the Marquessate of Willingdon, however it is now extinct. In the later years of its creations it was traditionally awarded to those who have been Viceroy of India. It has been said that a marquessate was a reward for someone who did not quite merit a dukedom.

Note that when royal dukes are created, the level of marquess is not bestowed as the first subsidiary title. In effect this means that marquessates are no longer being created at all, royal or non-royal.

Both the wives of marquesses, and women who hold marquessates in their own right are called marchionesses. Currently there are no marchionesses in their own right.

Earl
The title is of great antiquity in England, having evolved from the Old English “eorl” which is related to similar words in Scandinavian languages. The English and British “earl” is equivalent to the “count” in European nobility, and indeed the female counterpart to the earl is the countess. A countess can be a female earl in her own right or can be a wife of an earl.

Following the Norman invasion, the earl was a very important and powerful rank, but varying considerably over time. Commencing with the reign of Edward III, the earl began to be superseded in power and status by the more modern dukes.

While members of the royal family are still being conferred earldoms, the last non-royal earldom created was in 1984 for the former Prime Minister Harold Macmillan, as Earl of Stockton. That relatively late conferment was unusual in that it was a re-offer made to him, after he had turned it down twenty years prior. Previously it was standard for former prime ministers to be made earls and it was quite unusual for this to be turned down. Sir Winston Churchill did so on his retirement as he wished to continue in the House of Commons and wished also that his son could do the same. Peers could not do so.

Note that there is now only one Countess in her own right (the Countess of Mar) and as might be expected, this title comes from the Peerage of Scotland, which more liberally allowed inheritance by females.

Viscount
The viscount in antiquity was a sort of deputy to the counts of continental Europe, i.e. vice-count. In England the first viscount was created in the 15^th century and today there are just over 100 who do not hold a higher title. There are just as many men using the title viscount who do so by courtesy as the eldest son of a marquess or earl. Invariably viscounts are referred to as either Viscount Something or Viscount Someone of Someplace, never as Viscount of Someplace. Note that three of the four Viscounts in the peerage of Scotland are legally Viscount of Somewhere but do not use that form. The last non-royal viscountcy was created in 1964.

Baron
The term began to be used in England with the Norman Invasion. At first it was a general term for the prominent members of society who were “the king’s men”, and eventually evolved into a title for those who were eligible to be part of the Great Council, which in turn evolved into Parliament. Eventually the title of baron became hereditary. The history of the baron in England is a long and interesting one. Note that there are no barons in the Peerage of Scotland but there is an equivalent level called Lord of Parliament. The last hereditary barony was created in 1965.

Life Baron
THIS IS THE ONLY CLASS OF PEERAGE NOW BEING CONFERRED IN THE UNITED KINGDOM, OUTSIDE OF THE ROYAL FAMILY.

This is a barony that is held for the life of the recipient. There had been instances of life peers over the last two centuries, particularly for judges and others whose expertise was needed within the House of Lords The Life Peerages Act of 1958 fundamentally changed the granting of peerages in the United Kingdom, and spelled the beginning of the end for hereditary conferments outside the royal family, and within a decade they had come to a complete end. With the special exception of the Dukedom of Edinburgh conferred in 2023 to Prince Edward, the only level of life peerage conferred is the baron. Today there are three avenues towards being made a life baron. The most prominent is the working peer, who is essentially a political appointment along party lines intended to carry out the business of the House of Lords. There is also what is referred to as Peoples’ Peers, who are recommended by the citizenry. Finally there are some appointments in recognition of accomplishment in various walks of life, similar to the manner in which knighthoods are conferred. Only the working peers are expected to actually attend the House of Lords and take part; however the others may do so if they wish. Note that several retiring Prime Ministers were made life barons but even that has stopped, with several more recent prime ministers not being recognized in this way. There are some other offices that generally have a life peerage attached when the holder retires. The “ins and outs” of the life peerage are beyond the scope of this article.

Unlike hereditary peers, there are many female life peers. At present about 1/3 of all life barons are female.

Perceived sexism in the British system of royalty and nobility

This topic has been addressed in a fragmented manner previously in this article, but here is brought together.

It has been said that the system is male-oriented and male-privileged, and this has certainly been true when it comes to receiving titles. Other than in the Scottish parts of the British nobility system, it has been highly exceptional for hereditary titles to be awarded to females or inherited by females. Thus there are very few females who are hereditary peers in their own right. Women basically only become duchesses, marchionesses, countesses, etc. by marriage to dukes, marquesses, earls, etc. Since there are no hereditary peerages being created nowadays, this system can be thought of as one that is from the past and slowly heading to total extinction, though this may take several centuries to happen.

In the above paragraph I used the term “hereditary” several times. That is because in the more modern aspect of the peerage, in which only life baronies are being created, women are just as commonly created peers as are males. Keep in mind however, because they are life peerages, their children (sons or daughters) cannot inherit the title.

On the other hand, when it comes to royalty, it must be repeated that gender now does not matter when it comes to succession to the throne. Retroactive to 2011 daughters are equal to sons, and only birth order matters.

The other side of the coin when it comes to perceived sexism is that women seem to get a much better deal when it comes to marrying a peer. As stated above, if Mary Jones marries His Grace the Duke of Somewhere, she immediately becomes, by courtesy and standing, Her Grace the Duchess of Somewhere. If a male marries a female peer (in her own right) he gets nothing of the sort. For example if John Smith marries The Countess of Thatplace, he is still just Mr. John Smith. Now that doesn’t seem so great. Of course as already said there are very few female hereditary title holders but there are plenty of Life Baronesses, whose husbands do not receive any courtesy title. As stated previously, a man who marries a princess does not become a prince, or receive any other special title. He remains as he was before marriage, other than any other sorts of advantages that come from such a marriage.

I will leave it up to you to decide what you think of all this.

Table of Nobility, excepting Scottish variations.

Note that, since 1999, only 92 chosen hereditary peers may attend the House of Lords

The numbers shown include only non-subsidiary titles. For example if there is an Earldom of London, but the holder is also the Duke of Northwestershire, that person is counted only with the dukes (see below table for a restatement)

Title	Duke (nonroyal)	Marquess	Earl	Viscount	Baron****
Wife or IOR	Duchess	Marchioness	Countess	Viscountess	Baroness
# Extant (not sub) ^^	28***	35	189	110 (+ ca. 160 that are sub.)	443 Plus about 740 life peer barons
First bestowed	Cornwall 1337	14^th c	1017	Beaumont 1440	1066
Oldest extant (same creation)	Norfolk 1483	Winchester 1551	Shrewsbury 1442	Hereford 1550	De Ros 1264
Last bestowed	Argyll 1892. Fife 1900 for royal now non-royal.	Willingdon 1936 (extinct)	Earl of Stockton 1984 (ex – PM)	Several in the 1960’s up to 1964	Margadale 1965 (last hereditary)
Prefix	The Most Noble	The Most Hon.	The Right Hon.	The Right Hon.	The Right Hon.
Form of address	My Lord Duke Your Grace	My Lord Marquess My Lord/Lady	My Lord/Madam	My Lord/Madam	My Lord/Madam
In speech		Lord/Lady X	Lord/Lady X	Lord/Lady X	Lord/Lady X except Baroness for Baroness IOR.
Eldest son uses courtesy title?	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No
Sons not using courtesy title	The Lord First Name Last Name	The Lord First Name Last Name	The Hon. First Name Last Name	The Hon. First Name Last Name	The Hon. First Name Last Name
Daughters	The Lady First Name Last Name**	The Lady First Name Last Name**	The Hon. First Name Last Name	The Hon. First Name Last Name	The Hon. First Name Last Name
# of Females IOR	none	none	1 (the Countess of Mar)	none	Six (plus Scottish Ladies of Parliament)

** If married, the married last name is used. *** including two pairs, and one trio. So therefore 24 individuals.
^^ These numbers do not include titles that are subsidiary to a higher title.
**** Includes Lords and Ladies of Parliament in the Peerage of Scotland.

^^ not sub = not subsidiary, i.e. the number of each type includes only those persons who do not hold a higher title. For example if the Earl of Anywhere is also the Duke of Somewhere, he is only counted in the numbers of dukes, not in the numbers of earls, as subsidiary titles are not used, except as courtesy titles for eldest sons.

PART 12
BARONETAGE

As for the previous sections I am not detailing the history of the baronet.

Baronets are a sort of hereditary knight. Many baronetages were purchased in order for the monarch to raise funds or provide soldiers, and like the peerage, can be of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain, and the United Kingdom.

While it may be possible for some baronetages to be inherited by women, there are at present no baronetesses in their own right, and in fact there have only ever been five baronetesses in their own right, with the last one dying in 2011.

The conferring of baronetcies has ceased, with the last one conferred in 1990, that being Sir Denis Thatcher of Scotney. Only a total of three have been conferred since 1965. There is no legislation preventing further baronetcies being created and therefore a change in public and political attitudes could reverse the trend.

In 2023 there are approximately 950 baronets who are not also peers. The number is somewhat tenuous as many baronetcies are either in dispute or in abeyance, and could become reactivated.

Form of address: Sir First Name Last Name, then Sir First Name. Baronetess in own right use Dame. Women who are baronetesses as wife of a baronet are Lady Last Name, NOT Lady First Name Last Name. Widows and divorced wives use First Name, Lady Last Name.

Baronets take precedence before all knights except those of the Garter and Thistle.

PART 13
KNIGHTAGE

The history of knights in the United Kingdom is long and complex, and will not be detailed here. Knighthoods are still regularly being created today in the UK. They are not hereditary, and are generally awarded to recognize accomplishment in many fields of endeavor. A knight is addressed as Sir First Name Last Name, with the female equivalent being Dame First Name Last Name, with the exception of the Orders of the Garter and Thistle. Wives of knights are addressed as Lady Last Name. As is usual, husbands of dames do not receive any honorific.

In an overall sense there are two levels of knighthood, at least for males, those being knights of chivalric orders and below them the basic level of Knights Bachelor. Today, most males from the arts, science and business being recognized with a knighthood will become a Knight Bachelor. Those from the military and public service are more likely to become knights in one of the orders of chivalry. The orders of chivalry are currently those of the Garter, the Thistle, the Bath, St Michael & St George, the British Empire, and the Royal Victorian Order.

All knighthoods other than those of the Royal Victorian Order are conferred on the advice of the Prime Minister. The Royal Victorian Order remains in the hands of the monarch. As well the monarch has very significant influence regarding the Garter and Thistle.

The orders of the Bath, St Michael and St George, and British Empire, and as well the Royal Victorian Order, have within them two levels of knighthood. The higher one is the Knight Grand Cross (or Commander the case of the British Empire) and the lower one is the Knight Commander. In the table of precedence, after the Knights of the Garter and Thistle come the Knights Grand Cross/Commander of the orders, in the sequence as shown in the chart below, then come the Knight Commanders in the same sequence. Thus a Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order is superior to a Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath, even though overall the Order of the Bath is superior to the Royal Victorian Order.

In regard to regalia, Knights and Ladies of the Garter and Thistle, as well as Knights and Dames Grand Cross of the other orders are entitled to wear on ceremonial occasions a mantle (cloak) and hat, as well as a collar and star. On lesser occasions the mantle and hat are omitted, but a sash is worn. Knights and Dames Commander do not have mantles and hats, nor do they have sashes. They wear the lesser star around their necks. Note that Knights Bachelor and Baronets have neck badges but no other regalia.

Est.	Name and notes	Post-nominal letters, Form of address, Number of members, Style of Mantle, sash, hat.
1348	The Most Noble Order of the Garter. This is the supreme knighthood honour for service associated with England, Wales and Northern Ireland.	Knight Companion KG/Lady Companion LG. Sir First Name Last Name. Lady First Name Last Name. (24 Companions, plus royal and foreign). Mantle is dark blue, lined with white taffeta. The sash is Kingfisher blue, from left shoulder. Hat is black velvet tudor bonnet with white ostrich and black heron feathers.
1687	The Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle. This is the supreme knighthood honour for service associated with Scotland.	Knight KT/Lady LT. Sir First Name Last Name. Lady First Name Last Name. (16 knights and ladies, not counting foreign and royal). Mantle is green, lined with white taffeta. The sash is dark green, from the left shoulder. Hat is black velvet, plumed with white feathers and black egret or heron top in the middle.
1725	The Most Honourable Order of the Bath. Military and Civil Divisions. This order mostly honours senior military (3-star minimum for KCB) and comparable civil servants.	Knight/Dame Grand Cross GCB (120), Knight Commander KCB/Dame Commander DCB (355). Sir First Name Last Name. Dame First Name Last Name. Wife of Knight is Lady Last Name. Mantle is crimson satin, lined with white taffeta. The sash is crimson, from right shoulder. Hat black velvet with upright plume of feathers.
1818	The Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George. This order mostly honours diplomats and colonial service officers.	Knight/Dame Grand Cross GCMG (125), Knight Commander KCMG/Dame Commander DCMG (375). Sir First Name Last Name. Dame First Name Last Name. Wife of Knight is Lady Last Name. Mantle is Saxon Blue, lined with crimson silk. Sash is Blue-Crimson-Blue from right shoulder.
1896	The Royal Victorian Order. This order honours those who have served the crown directly.	Knight/Dame Grand Cross GCVO (NL), Knight Commander KCVO/Dame Commander DCVO (NL). Sir First Name Last Name. Dame First Name Last Name. Wife of Knight is Lady Last Name. Mantle is blue with red edging. Sash is blue with red-white-red edging, from right shoulder.
1917	The Most Excellent Order of the British Empire. There are civil and military divisions, however the military division is not often awarded. This order honours those in a variety of backgrounds.	Knight/Dame Grand Cross GBE (300), Knight Commander KBE/Dame Commander DBE (845). Sir First Name Last Name. Dame First Name Last Name. Wife of Knight is Lady Last Name. Mantle is rose-pink satin lined with pearl grey silk. Sash is rose pink with grey edges, and for the military division a central grey stripe. This is now the least awarded knighthood for males.
	Knight Bachelor (Not open to females; females to be honoured at this level are made DBE instead). Investiture as a knight bachelor is the standard for recognition of individuals in business, science and the arts.	Kt. This post-nominal is used only when it is necessary to make it clear that the person is a knight bachelor. Sir First Name Last Name. Wife of Knight is Lady Last Name. No regalia.

Note that the four orders below the Garter and Thistle have lesser levels beneath the two knighthood levels. These do not confer knighthood or any other title. Note also that there are other orders such as the Distinguished Service Order and the Imperial Service Order that do not have knighthood levels whatsoever. In addition there are Royal Family Orders established by monarchs in which bowed insignia are presented to senior female family members. As of 2023 it is not yet known if Charles III will continue that practice.
Note also that the following British orders still legally exist but are no longer awarded and now have no living recipients:
1783 The Most Illustrious Order of Saint Patrick, 1861 The Most Exalted Order of the Star of India, 1878 The Most Eminent Order of the Indian Empire.

PART 14
TITLES IN CANADA

The system of noble titles and knightage originating in the United Kingdom did extend to the colonies in the sense that the home government, i.e. the British government, and legally the sovereign, did confer titles in these possessions. It is not within the scope of this article to detail former and current usage. Be it sufficient to state that some independent nations of the Commonwealth continue to utilize aspects of the British system or have set up similar systems of their own. Some of these nations do continue to incorporate the knightly title “Sir” in their modern systems, This section will deal only with Canada.

Modern Canadian society does include titles and honorifics, similar to most other countries. These range from the simple Mr, Ms and Mrs to those that distinguish professional status such as Doctor, Sergeant, General and Senator. Most of the professional titles are used only in specific context of the profession, and generally not after the holder has left that profession actively. This contrasts very much with the American context in which not only more professions have commonly used titles, they continue to be used after the person has left their position. So, in the USA you may many people having their name prefixed with Coach, and lesser numbers with political office titles such as Secretary or Governor, even long after they have vacated those positions. Witness Hilary Clinton being routinely addressed as Secretary Clinton while she was campaigning for the presidential nomination, long after she had ceased being Secretary of State. In Canada this just does not happen. For example, former prime ministers, premiers and cabinet members are not addressed as such once they are gone from those spots.

Thus it can be said, of the three countries, Canada now uses titles less than the United Kingdom and less than the USA. It is clear that Canada has, as a society, refrained from following the American model, but it is less clear how it came about that we do not have lords and ladies and baronets and knights and dames. There is in fact no law on the books to say that we cannot have such titles but there is instead long-standing governmental policy.

It has often been said that Canada seriously began to come of age during the Great War, i.e. World War, due to its great contributions to the war effort itself along with an increasingly independent national persona. Up until the middle of the war, knighthoods were awarded to Canadians, as were to some extent noble titles. These were awarded by the king but on the advice of the British government.

Towards the end of World War I it was noted by Canadian politicians that some Canadians had been honoured by the British government, on behalf of the crown, for services during the war. At least some of these appointments were not popular, or not seen as merited, and this led to the beginning of a process of eliminating noble and knightly titles in Canada. This process has not yet reached a legal conclusion in terms of legislation, but certainly has engendered long standing policy that has brought such awards to an end. I will outline this process in an incomplete and imprecise way, that may prompt you to dig deeper.

Towards the end of World War I, there arose concerns over the awarding of titles. These concerns were two-fold. Prime Minister Robert Borden was not necessarily opposed to titles being bestowed to Canadians, but he wanted the nomination and control to be taken out of the hands of the British government, and brought to Canada, for direct recommendation to the sovereign. Others felt that the whole idea of titles was contrary to the democratic values of this country, and therefore there should not be any at all. This dichotomy certainly added to the difficulties in making any formal progress, but at the informal level it was a different matter.

In 1917 Conservative MP William Nickle brought forward in the House of Commons a resolution to end the awarding of titles, hereditary and non-hereditary, to Canadians. This “Nickle Resolution” was passed in the Commons but was never advanced to the Senate, and therefore did not become law. At around the same time, the Prime Minister drafted his own policy that called not for elimination but rather transfer of control of nominations to the Canadian government. It might be noted that prime minister, Robert Borden, himself had been knighted a few years earlier, so he was not particularly opposed to knighthood for Canadians. As a further comment, there were some that felt that William Nickle was firmly opposed to titles as he had failed to obtain a knighthood for his father-in-law, a leading academic, in the years previous.

In 1919 there were renewed concerns, as the British government had established the Order of the British Empire, and whether warranted or not, there were fears that knighthoods in the Order might go to those who contributed financially to the right parties in the UK. This led to a second Nickle Resolution, which again did not reach the Senate, but it did establish a policy precedent that in effect ceased the awards of titles to Canadians, except for a short period in the 1930s.

During the 1920’s the Liberal government of William Lyon McKenzie King advocated strongly for the equality of Canada vis a vis the United Kingdom. In addition to desiring control over honours to Canadians being domiciled in Canada, the prime minister also demanded that governors-general be chosen by Canadians, a goal that was not achieved until the 1950’s. While not all of his demands were met, it was enough to cause the British government to decrease and eventually cease unilateral awards with titles to Canadians.

In 1934 the new Conservative Prime Minister R.B. Bennett posited that a mere resolution coming from a past parliament was not binding on a current parliament or government. With this principle being expressed by the prime minister, he submitted recommendations to the crown for inclusion in the annual honours lists. Thus a number of knighthoods were awarded, including to the Chief Justice of Canada, the commissioner of the RCMP, the co-discoverer of Insulin (Frederick Banting) and the eminent composer/conductor Ernest MacMillan.  None of these were political cronies, and certainly were worthy. During this period another Nickle Resolution was introduced in the House of Commons but was defeated. This constitutes the last time that the topic has been actually voted on in parliament.

In 1935 Mackenzie King returned to office and made no further honours list recommendations for titled awards. This ended permanently the creation of knighthoods and peerages for Canadians who live in Canada and are purely Canadian citizens. There have been a small number of dual citizens or Canadians not domiciled in Canada who have been knighted or received peerages on the recommendation of the British government. One of these was R.B. Bennett himself, who moved to England in 1938, and was created Viscount Bennett.

Three relatively modern cases worthy of mention are those of Roy Thomson, Conrad Black and Mark Carney.

Roy Thomson was in his younger adulthood a radio salesman in Ontario who progressed into owning radio stations and then newspapers, becoming prominent in the field. It is said that he aspired to a peerage but realized he would not achieve that end by staying in Canada. He therefore moved to the United Kingdom in 1951 and built up an empire of television stations and newspapers. In 1964 he was recognized by the British government with one of the last hereditary baronies conferred, and became Lord Thomson of Fleet. As he was a British subject and resident in the UK there was no active objection from Canadian quarters. At his peak Lord Thomson owned 200 newspapers in Canada, the US and UK, and had ownership or interests in several other industries. On his death in 1976 his empire and his title were inherited by his son Kenneth Thomson, who became the 2^nd Lord Thomson of Fleet, and subsequently on his death in 2006 by his son, also Kenneth, who is now the 3^rd Lord Thomson of Fleet. The present Ken Thomson is known as that within Canada, and at work in England as Lord Thomson.

Conrad Black is another Canadian with dual citizenship and a newspaper empire who was offered a life peerage by the British government. Unlike the situation in 1964 for Roy Thomson, this was strongly opposed by the government of Canada, more specifically Prime Minister Chretien, as Black was domiciled in Canada. This occurred in 2001 and in order to accept, he gave up his Canadian citizenship and became Baron Black of Crossharbour. Later in life Black was convicted in the USA of fraud and imprisoned. As a result he was expelled from the Order of Canada (he had become an Officer in 1990) but did not lose his baronial title. Following his incarceration he was granted a pardon by President Trump, and in 2023 he was able to regain his Canadian citizenship. Thus he is a Canadian with a noble title, just as Ken Thomson is.

Mark Carney was the governor of the Bank of Canada who went on to become the first non-British governor of the Bank of England. He served in this latter position from 2013 to 2020. On completion of his term in office he returned to Canada, but has directorships also in the USA and UK. Commonly, retiring governors of the Bank received knighthoods (or farther back in time, noble titles) but Mr. Carney did not. Whether this is due to his Canadian citizenship and life, or to other factors is not clearly known. Note that Carney is also a citizen of the UK and of Ireland.

Today Canada has its own system of honours, none of which have accompanying titles. There is no nobility in Canada but there are orders. These are The Order of Canada, The Order of Military Merit, and the Order of Merit of the Police Forces. These orders have levels that directly correspond to the non-titled levels of the British orders that have been replaced, i..e Companion/Commander, Officer, Member, Thus we have the Companion of the Order of Canada, which is recognized as the highest level of recognition for service outside the military and police forces, with the Officer and Member being at lower recognition levels. Since the beginning of the Order of Canada there have been occasional comments that our national orders do not have high enough levels. These are generally a comparison to the British system upon which they are based. In the United Kingdom, a Commander or Officer of an order such as the Bath or St. Michael and St. George is generally someone who has done well in a military or governmental career and reached a respected level, but certainly not the highest level. Those who are nationally exalted will receive a knighthood in one of these orders, or become a knight bachelor, or even perhaps become a life peer, and be entitled to be called Lord or Lady. We do not have provision on a similar basis for such exaltedness here in Canada, and being a Companion of the Order of Canada is the best possible, with no accompanying title. Still, this does not seem to be a pressing issue, and calls for change are low-key and infrequent.

As a post-script, it should be mentioned first that many of the provinces have their own orders of merit. Thus we have The Order of Nova Scotia and l’Ordre National du Quebec, amongst others. These all have one level, that being member, and are intended to honour those who have contributed in some major way to life in those provinces.

As a second post-script, it must also be mentioned that there are Orders in Canada that do include the term “Knight” however these are private in nature, being established by organizations, generally international in nature, and none allow for recipients at the knightly level to be referred to as “Sir”. One of these orders has special standing in that it is incorporated into to the Canadian system of honours, and its insignia is authorized for wear with official national awards. This is the Order of St. John, which has branches throughout the world. It could take a thesis or book in itself to trace how what is now essentially a first aid organization in Canada could attain such a standing. I invite any readers to research the Order and see the insignia and regalia which rival those of the British orders.

END OF ARTICLE