The International Association of Amateur Heralds

Chris Green wrote:To be absolutely accurate, I could have written: "This is the standard used in Scotland by the Duke of Cambridge, where he is known as Earl of Strathearn", or perhaps: "This is the standard used in Scotland by the Earl of Strathearn, better known to non-Scots as the Duke of Cambridge". I am afraid I didn't.

OK. But the title of the thread is "The Arms of the Duke of Rothesay" not "The Arms of the Prince of Wales Known in Scotland as The Duke of Rothesay". So, for the sake of consistency it would make sense to use the Scottish title within the context of this conversation. The Earl of Strathearn is also known simply as Prince William by non-Scots and wherever he is. I take your point about how this is merely a matter of semantics and a minor one at that.

little side note it would be very interesting to see what would happen if Scotland became independent. The Royals could then use the local titles which would result in Prince Phillip, Baron of Greenwich in England the other titles being Scottish and Welsh.

Ton de Witte wrote:... it would be very interesting to see what would happen if Scotland became independent. The Royals could then use the local titles which would result in Prince Phillip, Baron of Greenwich in England the other titles being Scottish and Welsh.

Even if Scotland were to become independent, your scenario would only be true if: 1) Scotland became a republic; 2) Scotland legislated to abolish titles in the same way some other countries did. Neither seems to be part of the official separatist manifesto.

Chris Green wrote:

Ton de Witte wrote:... it would be very interesting to see what would happen if Scotland became independent. The Royals could then use the local titles which would result in Prince Phillip, Baron of Greenwich in England the other titles being Scottish and Welsh.

Even if Scotland were to become independent, your scenario would only be true if: 1) Scotland became a republic; 2) Scotland legislated to abolish titles in the same way some other countries did. Neither seems to be part of the official separatist manifesto.

I don't think it would matter one way or the other.

When Sue Ryder (who founded the Sue Ryder Foundation) was elevated, he title was Baroness Ryder of Warsaw in the County of Suffolk.

Field Marshal Bernard Law Montgomery, 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein (in Somerset, I believe) was created in 1946.

Rear Admiral Louis Mountbatten, 1st Viscount Mountbatten of Burma was created in 1947. His subsidiary title of the Earldom are: Viscount Mountbatten of Burma, of Romsey in the County of Southampton.

Between the College and the Lord Chamberlain's office, they have created many titles with a foreign designation, but which are magically transported to an English County.

My own view, for what it is worth, is that a person should be known by his most senior title whilst in the country of said titles' creation. I believe that Rothesay is a Scottish title and therefore HRH Prince Charles should rightly be known, whilst in Scotland and by the Scots, as Rothesay.

HOWEVER HRH Prince William (in my humble opinion) should be know throughout the UK as the Duke of Cambridge because all of his titles are UK creations; he does not hold a title of Scottish creation, so as long as Scotland remains in the UK, Cambridge is the senior title in that country too.

That said, I fully accept that there will be occasions where (for example) when in Cheshire HRH Prince Charles will be referred to as the Earl of Chester and when he is in Cornwall, he is no doubt referred to as Cornwall however, that is understandable because residents are referring to "their" earl on that occasion and in that context. On that basis, I see no reason why residents of Strathearn should not refer to "their" earl as Strathearn but in the rest of the UK (including the rest of Scotland) his senior UK title is Cambridge (I stress UK because we are not separated yet and he does not hold a Scots created title).

Traditionally, a person is known by their highest title, no matter where they are. There are exceptions, and I think very good reasons for them, but they are exceptions. The best example is the Stadtholder of the Netherlands, it's holders were known mostly be foreign titles, either Prince of Orange or King of England etc. The strangest thing, is that the Duke of Rothesay's arms would display perhaps his lowest titles, and omit references to his higher titles. After all, Her Majesty the Queen does not omit any quarters when in Scotland, she just interprets precedence differently.

Her Majesty the Queen does not omit any quarters when in Scotland, she just interprets precedence differently.

Good point Ryan.

In the Netherlands and Belgium, the heir male of Field Marshal Sir Arthur Wellesley is known as Prins van Waterloo. Most other places, he's known by the slightly lower ranking title of Duke of Wellington.

Stadhouder was not a title of nobility, but the name of a position, like constable, steward, marshal, etc.

Empress/emperor is generally regarded as a higher title than queen/king, yet Victoria, Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII, and George VI were normally referred to within the UK by the lower title.

What one correctly calls Prince Charles in different parts of the United Kingdom is not based on the relative seniority of the titles but their historic and legal origin. The title of Prince of Wales is historically granted only to the heir apparent to the throne of England; the dukedom of Cornwall by the terms of its charter automatically falls to the eldest living son of the king or queen of England. The dukedom of Rothesay is restricted by statute of the old Scottish Parliament to "the first-born Prince of the King of Scots for ever." None of these were changed by the 1707 Act of Union, nor by subsequent acts concerning the monarch's own titles.

At the risk of starting a debate on the bid for Scottish independence, one wonders how an independent Scotland would in fact deal with the titles of HRH Prince William which are all titles of the United Kingdom. Post independence Scotland would no longer be a part of the United Kingdom and so William would hold no valid Scottish title.

Thinking about it, I can answer my own question; the same way that most other countries do (such as Canada etc.).