Will Carole & Michael Middleton be offered a peerage now that the baby is here?

Didn’t I say this would happen? Didn’t I predict this months ago? Didn’t I say that as soon as Duchess Kate gave birth to the royal baby, the heir, that there would be a movement to give Kate’s parents some sort of title/peerage? Months ago, I suspected that Kate and William were actively lobbying the Queen to give Carole and Michael Middleton some kind of peerage, like making them Lord and Lady Crumpets or Michael, Earl of Crumpets and Lady Carole. And now, of course, that lobbying is coming from The Telegraph, one of the most royal-friendly papers in England. The Telegraph’s Christopher Wilson says that now that little Prince George is out in the world, he needs to have grandparents who are titled. Just FYI, I’m just excerpting heavily from the original article because I love reading about peerages and the funky way they are bestowed by the sovereign.

Safe in his Bucklebury redoubt, Prince George of Cambridge is enjoying his first days on earth in the care of a warm and loving family, in an atmosphere far removed from the panoply and pomp normally suffered by future kings.

The free-and-easy Middleton household is the perfect antidote to the exigences of court life – no protocol, no servants, and no formality as the new baby finds his way. Prince William must be truly grateful for this child’s rather more normal start to life. But how grateful? Is the Royal family – indeed, is the nation – ready to reward the Middletons for delivering their daughter and her firstborn into the pages of history? And if so, how?

Students of the royal story are quick to point out that Michael Middleton is the first grandfather of a future king not to bear a title. Indeed, not for 1,000 years has our sovereign had a commoner among its grandparents. Historically, grandfathers of future monarchs have been bluebloods with their own title, the roll-call down the ages heavily spattered with kings, princes and dukes.

Our future King William had an earl (Spencer) as his maternal grandpa, and so did the Queen (Strathmore). Even Anne Boleyn saw her father advanced from commoner to Earl of Wiltshire long before she gave birth to her daughter, the future Queen Elizabeth I.
The only other non-titled grandpa in the past millennium, the father of King Edward IV’s wife Elizabeth Woodville, also had an earldom rapidly bestowed upon him. And so a title for Michael Middleton and his gracious lady Carole? With their manor house and their burgeoning wealth, it would surely not seem amiss.

The couple have been welcomed by the Queen into her wider family, plus their entrepreneurial streak would bring a dash of freshness to a slightly boggy hereditary institution.

Charles Kidd, distinguished editor of Debrett’s Peerage, thinks it unlikely: “I do not think it very feasible that Michael Middleton will be offered an hereditary peerage. After all, neither of the Princess Royal’s husbands have been ennobled – I assume a peerage was offered to both – which means that the Queen has grandchildren who do not have a title, a first in the House of Windsor,” he says. “With every generation that passes, the Royal family absorbs and reflects social changes, and, by the time Prince George of Cambridge becomes King, I think the fact that his maternal grandfather was untitled will not seem odd to the great majority of his subjects.” Well, yes and no – the difference here is that Princess Anne’s children will be lost in the mists of history, while Prince William’s child will be King. And so the possibility remains.

Those charged with such matters at the House of Lords confirm: “Hereditary peerages have not been discontinued – it’s just that they are rarely created these days. Most recent is Prince William’s own peerage, a royal dukedom, in 2011. It is to be assumed that Prince Harry will be granted a dukedom at the time of his marriage. Other recent peerages include Prince Edward’s earldom in 1999 and Prince Andrew’s dukedom of York in 1986. Commoners who received hereditary peerages in the past 30 years include the politicians William Whitelaw and George Thomas.” (Both of whom – a Downing Street joke, surely – were created viscount in 1983 even though each was without an heir.)

So it’s feasible. All it takes is for the monarch to indicate to her prime minister that she would be pleased to hear his recommendation that Middleton be elevated to the Lords. David Cameron, unless deaf, would take this broad hint and suggest brightly to his sovereign that it would be a jolly good idea to ennoble the Middletons. Her Majesty would accept this suggestion, and with very little procedural wrangling the thing would be done.

So far so good for the Middletons – but what rank? What title? Charles Mosley, former editor of Burke’s Peerage, recommends an earldom: “A dukedom would be too much – and anyway you’d have to be colossally rich to support such a title.” As for what name they should take, though much has been made in some quarters of the mixed pedigree of the Middleton family, there’s some distinguished ancestry for the historians at the College of Arms to call upon when researching a possible title. Take Sir Thomas Fairfax, who rode with King Henry VIII on his military expedition to Artois and Flanders in 1513. Fairfax was knighted by the king when the city of Tournai surrendered in the face of their advance. Later he returned to his ancient seat, Gilling Castle, in Yorkshire. He is Michael Middleton’s 12th great-grandfather. There exists a long-established barony, the Lords Fairfax of Cameron, but this is a Scottish peerage dating from 1627.

Earl Fairfax has a nice, swanky, antique ring to it. Another possibility could be the revival of the earldom of Manvers, which became extinct in 1955. Michael Middleton’s ninth generation grandfather, Daniel Meadows, was born in Suffolk in 1577. Through his direct male line, the Manvers earldom was granted in 1806 to his great-grandson Charles Medows, whose maternal grandfather was the first Duke of Kingston.

Choosing a title will present a problem, however, if the family cannot settle on one of the above. Mike will not be allowed to call himself Lord Middleton because others got there before him – the Willoughby family were granted the barony of Middleton in 1677 and have clung onto it ever since. And the Brodricks, Irish politicians, were elevated to become Viscount Midleton in the 18th century. But there are plenty of choices, including a wide variety of geographical names from which they could choose – though Earl and Countess of Bucklebury are not among them.

Additionally Charles Mosley suggests that, were such a peerage created, it should follow the line of some Scottish peerages in including a female remainder, allowing the title to pass from Michael Middleton to his first-born – Kate – thereby allowing one of her children to bear a title not specifically created for the Royal family. Earl Fairfax? Lord and Lady Lupton? What could be nicer?

[From The Telegraph]

There was so much more fuss and historical name-gaming in there but it was giving me a headache so I edited it out. Basically, the gist of it is that Carole and Michael cannot be Lord and Lady Middleton or the Earl of Bucklebury or whatever because those titles exist (in varying forms) to other people. So, they would have to be created or reused from “extinct” titles, which… despite what I think about Carole and Michael, sounds kind of cool, even if you’re playing fast and loose with the history behind the titles.

And yes, if you’re going to give the Middletons a title, don’t make it “Duke”. I wouldn’t even say it should be an earldom. Just make them Lord and Lady Whatever. Crumpets does have a nice ring to it!! As for the chances this will actually go down… I don’t know. As I said, my guess is still that William and Kate are lobbying for it to happen, and the Queen might be in a more generous mood now that she’s seen Prince George and he’s been named after her father. So maybe she will “offer” and of course the Middletons would accept. Prince George, formerly Baby Crumpets, is going to have a grandfather named Lord Crumpets, mark my words.

Photos courtesy of WENN.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

125 Responses to “Will Carole & Michael Middleton be offered a peerage now that the baby is here?”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Elisabeth says:

    they probably should since their grandson will be the king of England (not to mention their daughter will be queen of England)

    • whipmyhair says:

      I think the reason why no grandparent of a future King has had no title is that they didn’t marry commoners. Sleep with the chambermaid maybe; but not marry. So I don’t think this will happen. If Zara Phillips a “princess of the blood” and a favourite of the queen- is without a proper title I doubt Grandma and Grandpa Crumpets will get a title.

      Also I think Kaiser writes these posts so she can see everyone freak out. Which is entertaining to all.

      Fire at will ladies!

    • Kate says:

      Yep. (Whether we like them or not, they would certainly qualify for it based on these grounds.)

    • FLORC says:

      Kate will be Queen Consort. She won’t be Queen in the sense that she will rule if her husband the King passes. This is also hinging on a no divorce scenario. And her child will most likely (if the monarchy remains until then) be King.
      And even if they’ll be the first grandparents of a King that are commoners without titles… Will the world end if this happens? Wouldn’t it propel the more normal image William and the Middletons are trying to launch? Correct me if i’m wrong, but it seems counterintuitive to have them seeking titles and to still want to be so normal with their PR campaign.

    • LAK says:

      Kate will never be Queen. She’s not the heir. She will only be Queen CONSORT ie Prince Philip’s job and only IF she remains married to William.

      • Anna says:

        90% of Queens in British history were Queen Consorts (bc there were a total of 4 queen regnants total I believe), and these kinds hereditary considerations still mattered greatly because the point here is the heritage not of a consort but of a future monarch – in this case, Lil Georgie – that’s why the discussion is taking place after he’s born.

      • LAK says:

        Anna – we’ve had 7 Queen Regnants if you include present Queen: *Matilda ,Blood Mary, Elizabeth I, **Mary II, Anne, Victoria and Elizabeth II.

        We’ve had 3 Queen Consorts attempt to grab power in the name of their sons: Eleanor of Acquitaine, Isabella of France [succeeded and ruled as Regent for approx. 2yrs], Margaret of D’Anjou.

        ps:- Given how much George VI relied on The Queen Mother, i’ve been thinking that she was a very powerful consort, possibly with real power that extended beyond her heir providing abilities.

        *Matilda – Though she was the rightful heir, she was usurped by her cousin Stephen. She took the throne from Stephen via battle. Was allowed to rule for a few months before they decided they preferred a male and handily stephen was still available. She stepped down only when Stephen accepted that her son would succeed him. Her reign is rarely mentioned.

        **Mary II ruled jointly with her husband and cousin William of Orange.

      • Anna says:

        LAK, thanks for the correction. In my accounting I for some reason always brush off anyone pre-QEI >.< (and discount Mary II bc a dude was involved – bc I am clearly the deciding authority on these matters ;-) )

      • LAK says:

        Anna – to be fair, i always forget Mary II and Anne. I find them so bloodless compared to so many other rulers and especially compared to the other 5 regnants. Infact, the only memorable thing i remember about them is that Mary co-ruled and Anne had 17babies!!!

        i tend to skip their reigns except for the fashion. Shallow i know.

        I think you are right in discounting Mary II. co-ruling when you can have the entire shebang to yourself is so lame [says the eternally 14yr old in me]. :)

  2. India says:

    If this happens, there will be a major uproar. These people are universally despised for their greedy grasping obnoxious in your face ways. It would be a huge mistake.

  3. Badirene says:

    I thought that the Middletons unique selling point was the fact that they are not titled, that they are normal, everyday people who worked hard and done well just like us plebs? Surely a title would change all the warm and fuzzies we are supposed to feel when looking at them and how much they achieved.

  4. Jules says:

    Well why not? The queen will give a title to anybody in England. All it takes is money.

    • Sarah says:

      Very accurate, Jules. Historically these titles were given for “service to the crown”. But that service could be killing on indigenous populations to claim the land for the king, defeating rival political and economic rivals (who may have had a better claim but didn’t have the biggest ships) or financing the king’s invasion of another country. Getting a title for marrying your daughter off to a high ranking royal is not new – although it hasn’t been used lately.

      It’s not like everyone who ever got a title has earned it through honest work. I’m all for the Middletons becoming lord and lady crumpets!

    • whipmyhair says:

      Maybe in the past but not nowadays. The Queen is known for her shrewdness. She decommissioned the Britannia “yacht” because it wasn’t needed anymore. And She spent huge chunks of her life travelling around the commonwealth on that “yacht”. If you look at the footage of the decommissioning service the Queen looks visibly upset- and she is the master of the stiff upper lip.

      Also I watched an incredibly sappy doco about the jubilee celebrations. The master of ceremonies mentioned that money was raised through private donations and one gentleman offered a considerable sum of money for a peerage- his offer was refused.

      It’s nice to think that there are still things that money can’t buy- even if it is a just a prefix

    • LAK says:

      Actually she hasn’t handed out that many titles. It’s always memorable when she does.

      The last hereditary peerage she handed out was to Sir Dennis Thatcher on the occasion of his wife Margaret retiring from office in 1990. It was done this way because hereditary peerages can only be inherited by the Male line.

      Margaret was later given a Life peerage in her own right [1992], but as a result of the Peerage being given to Denis, their son Mark inherited the title of Baron Thatcher and in due course Mark’s son Michael will inherit it too.

    • Dena says:


      Funny you would say that:

      Lib Dem donor denied peerage after care home neglect claims

      Mr Choudhrie and his family have given more than £640,000 to the Liberal Democrats, including £95,000 from Mr Choudhrie personally. The Indian multi-millionaire is one of seven Liberal Democrats who were understood to be under consideration for a peerage.

      A list of new peers, which is due to be published on Tuesday, is not expected to include Mr Choudhrie after senior Lib Dems were said to have raised concerns over the proposal with Mr Clegg.

      . . . All the main parties have faced accusations over the elevation of donors and party aides to the Lords, which allows members to claim tens of thousands of pounds a year in allowances for life.

      . . . Mr Clegg is expected to elevate James Palumbo, a nightclub entrepreneur, and Olly Grender, his former press adviser.

      David Cameron is poised to elevate Patrick Rock, a long-term adviser along with several Conservative donors.


  5. aquarius64 says:

    You bet the Middletons will want a title. Carole and Michael are grandparents of a future king. A hereditary peerage ups the family’s overall status and value: brother James would be the heir so it would pass on to him. Pippa may get a title too; for that would up her value on the marriage market and betters her chances of getting a titled husband, or so she thinks.

    • Sixer says:

      In the unlikely event this happens, any title for Pipsqueak would be dependent on the level of the title given to Mr M (the daughter of an Earl is a Lady, for instance, but the daughter of a viscount is just an Honorouble).

    • Sarah says:

      But what if the title is not “transferable”? Like Margaret Thatcher (Dame Thatcher) – her title doesn’t pass on to her son.

      • LAK says:

        An exception was made for Margaret Thatcher wereby they gave a hereditary peerage to her husband a couple of years before her life peerage. Her life peerage was the same as her husband ie A Baronet. She was never Dame Margaret Thatcher, but THE Baroness Thatcher. This is why she was never Dowager Baroness Thatcher despite her husband dying several years before her.

        Her son inherited the title and is now the 2nd Baron Thatcher.

    • SIxer says:

      The suggestion is whether they will get a hereditary title, not a life peerage for him, so a moot point.

    • dena says:

      I need time to think about this one:

      1. Although I don’t think granting them a title (at this time) will ever be a popular move (what have they done?), I can “understand” (yet not support) why they would do it now. There seems to be a love affair with Kate right now (and the baby) according to the press, at least. Therefore, if the Mids are going to get a title, then why not slip it in now while the going is good. Ride the wave, so to speak.

      2. If a title is going to be granted, then who should grant it (?): The current monarch who is respected and adored; a father (Prince Charles) who, if he grants the title, is in essence taking a hit for his son (and why not because he isn’t as well like or respected, so who gives a d*mn if they like “me” just a little bit less); or Prince William when he makes it to the throne and which by that time it will look like pure nepotism (would it still be “needed” or even relevant given all of the perqs that the Mids will get and will have gotten from the alliance anyway).

      3. Why would they need a title? For historical purposes? Surely, looking into the future–what little of it we can predict, doesn’t deem it necessary.

      4. It will never be a popular move, PR wise, so it would have to be done on the down-low and, of course, the Mids don’t know how to do that ala the signet rings.

      You know, the Mids are strivers. They have never been in the position they are in now, so it is understandable that they don’t know how to “act.” It’s difficult to know what the rules are and how to abide by them when you move from one social class to the other. In this, they would/should be awkward. I get it. But I think where they have made their mistake is trying to play as if they were to the manor born. They should just continue to play the role of who they are: a family that through hard work, luck and investments has done well for itself. This would go over much better, I think, in general and in terms of awarding the family a title.

    • Annabelle says:

      I don’t think there is a chance in hell that Queen Elizabeth will grant Pippa a title. IF her parents are granted a peerage, she’ll be styled as the daughter of an earl or viscount (if Michael is made one of those, obviously), which is a win for Pippa either way. But a title in her own right? That’s pretty laughable.

  6. ncboudicca says:

    Oh dear Lord, the article lost me right at the beginning with that load of bull about “no servants” at the Middletons’ manor house. Right. As if Michael is out on a John Deere cutting his own lawn every Saturday morning. I’m sure they also have a cleaning lady and at least a part-time cook. I suppose “servant” means a full-time live-in, as opposed to someone that you hire who may have other clients? Yet to imply that these people are doing it without any help like “regular” people is freakin ridiculous.

  7. Rita says:

    How about:

    The Royal Duke and Duchess In-laws Of The Luck Of The Draw.

    Maybe not. That doesn’t sound very regal.

    btw-Kate sure looks like mom. Love their smiles.

  8. MidnightAtTheMuseum says:

    This would be a deeply unpopular move with us Commoners. The Queen has been steadily modernising the monarchy and cutting out the hangers-on so I can’t see her dropping title hints to the Prime Minister anytime soon.

  9. crtb says:

    I don’t remember: Were Diana’s parents given titles after she gave birth to her two sons?

    • LeBarron says:

      Diana already came from a titled, aristocratic family when she married Charles. Her father was an earl (upon his death, her brother inherited the title), and the daughter of an earl is entitled to be refered to as a lady. Thus, Lady Diana.

    • PrairieGirl says:

      Diana’s father was an earl. Her grandfather on her mother’s side was a baron. Diana’s aristocratic credentials were well established and there was no need for the current shenanigans: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_diana

      • Anna says:

        Not just ‘established.’ I have read about the Spencers – whose noble lineage and very ‘British’ royal connections went back more than 500 years – turning up their noses at the Windsors being ‘those middle-class Germans’, as the House of Windsor descended down from the Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (Albert, Q Victoria’s consort).

    • Flora Kitty says:

      No her parents already had titles going back for several generations and both sides of her family were courtiers to the royals. Earl Spencer (Diana’s father) was an equerry to the Queen and her younger brother (the present earl) is a godson of the Queen. Her maternal grandmother, Lady Ruth Fermoy was a lady in waiting to Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother.

    • DanaG says:

      Diana’s father was Earl Spencer she came from a long established titled family. I don’t think the Queen will give them a title they are trying to modernise the Royal Family. Besides they are making plenty of cash without the title. Maybe when Charles or William is King maybe.

      • Tara says:

        Queen Elizabeth and Prince Phillip met with Charles and Diana to try to talk Diana out of the divorce. When she refused Phillip became quite flustered and angrily told Diana she would be stripped of her title. In one of her rare moments of direct defiance to her in-laws she shot back “my title is older than yours!” Now i see why the servants have to leave the room during private conversations. Had i been one there would be spilled tea and crumpets everywhere.

      • Iseepinkelefants says:

        Tara – that’s brilliant! I think I love Diana just a little bit more for that.

        And she’s right. She’s more English aristocracy than any of the Windsor’s. her marriage gave them more credit if you ask me because now at least her sons have true English stock.

        I advise history lovers to read up on the Spencer’s. they are a fascinating family. My love will always be with Georgina, Duchess of Devonshire. Brilliant woman.

    • AmyR says:

      No, her father was always Earl Spencer.

  10. Sisi says:

    I don’t see Elizabeth give them titles. However, if and when Charles/William becomes monarch, it’ll happen no doubt in mind.

  11. Suse says:

    i thought the “wonderful thing” about the Middleton family is that they are commoners and sooo normal and bla. Modern monarchy and all the fuzz…

    If the royals (or only Willy?) have a problem with a king with commoner relatives then William should have married an aristo-girl like his father etc.

    Giving the Middletons a title would look like untitled grandparents are not good enough for the “half-blood Prince”

  12. Banskygirl says:

    Wasn’t the whole point that William wanted a normal family. He bought them the house , now a title for them telling their daughter to go back to a serial cheater ?

  13. lady mary. says:

    thats a whole lot luck for one person(middletons) in a lifetime

  14. Banskygirl says:

    The Middletons don’t have enough money for staff. Maybe a cleaner once a week. They have no money . The only staff there is the cook paid for by royals who moved with Kate . She’s probably a slave to that family now.

  15. Banskygirl says:

    The comment about a whole lot of luck is right . Not much has gone wrong for the Middletons financially or socially .

  16. The Original Mia says:

    Won’t happen in the Queen’s lifetime. They might ask Charles to grant them one when he becomes King, but the Queen is far too shrewd to give in to Wiiliam. Besides, why would the Modern monarchy care for such things as titles? I thought they were all about championing this idea of the commoner becoming queen.

    • bluhare says:

      I’m with you Mia. I will be very surprised is the Queen gives them a title, especially one such as earl. It seems to me that this is the Middletons angling for one, not someone else’s brilliant idea, but maybe I’m being too unkind.

      The reason I think so is that with all the stuff that is printed about the Middletons and how they’ve been accepted in the Queen’s wider family (which I don’t buy for a minute), it was quite interesting to me that they weren’t even IN the hospital when the baby was born never mind in the delivery room. How many first time grandmothers out there who would not want to be there when their grandbaby is born? And then, other than Kate, William and the medical staff, the Queen was the first to know. I think that was a deliberate move by BP enabling the Queen to be the first to know. If Carole had been in the delivery room that is sending the message that she’s more important than the Queen/Prince Wales, and I think the Queen put her foot down. Perhaps the compromise was no flak about going to Bucklebury as they sure got out of there quickly!

      • The Original Mia says:

        I think the Queen already put her foot down, hence no Ma Midds or Pipsqueak in the birthing room. This is the future King, not just George Cambridge. Even if William on occasion throws tradition to the wind, he is still beholden to his title and his Queen.

  17. Lilix40 says:

    Is there a precedent for this kind of stuff on european monarchies? I mean, I don’t remember hearing anything about, say, prince Daniel of Sweden’s parents getting titles. As far as I’m concerned, they are still Mr. and Mrs. Westling. Same to princess Mary’s (of course, it could be because her father isn’t danish and doesn’t even live there).

    Seriously, I am genuinely curious! LAK? FLORC? Anyone could shed some light on this?

    • LAK says:

      I am not very good with European Royals, Sachi is the expert there. However, as far as i can tell, the parents of the people you’ve mentioned are still untitled.Marius, the stepson of Crown Prince Haakon of Norway remains untitled. So with the little knowledge i have, i am going to say, you are right.

      • m says:

        There is no title that Marius could have as nobility titles in Norway don’t exist anymore. Daniels parents could have been made a duke and duchess but those titles are very high up and difficult to get, but I dont think they were interested on bit in a title. Im not exactly sure about Danish titles, but Marys father is Scottish so even if he could have a title, I dont think it would even be valid. Plus, Mary and Daniel are true commoners whos families avoid the limelight like the plague so a title would be a huge lifestyle change.

      • Sachi says:

        LAK – as far as I know, Marius can’t be given a title because he was never adopted by Haakon.

        Marius has a father who is very active in his life so even though he has been completely embraced by the Norwegian royal family, he’s not a part of the Royal House.

        m – Mary’s family loved to get in on the royal events in the past couple of years. The latest was last year when Mary’s Dad was the one who accompanied Charles on a scheduled event that the Danish royals should have done. Mary’s father had no right to be officiating such an event, let alone entertaining the Prince of Wales since he is not an actual representative of Denmark. I don’t think even the Middletons would want to do such a thing.

        Mary’s father can’t be given a title since the Danish court is very small. There are lots of nobility in Denmark but the royal family itself rarely grants titles.

        The most that Queen Margrethe has done in previous years was to give out the Order of the Elephant, Denmark’s highest order. The last person to be given a title was Countess Alexandra when she divorced the Queen’s 2nd son, but only because she got remarried and her title of Princess was taken away. Alex’s title is not inheritable even though she has 2 sons. The title would revert back to the Crown when Alexandra passes.

    • Lady D says:

      Yes, where is LAK? I have questions too.

    • Anna says:

      Yes, but other Euros are less hung-up on these kinds relics like titles and peerages. Plus, in the UK, where the Queen has like a 90% approval rating and the monarchy is supported by the majority of the population, Elizabeth can grant a title here and there and most people will be like, ‘oh jolly good!’ especially when a cute baby future king is concerned. But in Sweden, for example, where, despite Victoria’s personal popularity, less than half of the people approve of the monarchy and more than a third think it should be done away with. In that context, handing out arbitrary titles (and other displays of ‘royal power’) would be an egregiously bad PR move.

    • Sachi says:

      Nope. No other “commoner” parents of anyone who married into the royal family were given titles.

      The only one I can remember whose family was elevated from Baron to Count (hereditary through the male line) is Queen Mathilde of Belgium’s family. But Mathilde herself is descended from pure aristocratic lines in Poland. Her family was already noble, but was given the elevated titles when she married then Prince Philippe, now King of the Belgians.

      It’s because in European monarchies, the royal court no longer exists. The old nobility can keep their titles and wealth but there is not much influence and power in public.

      A good example of this is Spain: when King Juan Carlos became King in the 1970s, he abolished the entire Spanish court and restricted the Royal House to just him and his immediate family (wife and children). There are still lots of Spanish aristocrats, ie. the Duchess of Alba, and the King still has many noble relatives in Spain who still use their titles including his sisters, but they don’t pull in any influence and don’t play big/important roles in public.

      The Norwegian royal house is even smaller. The Royal family of Norway is now only consisted of the King and Queen, the Crown Prince couple Haakon and Mette-Marit, and their eldest child Princess Ingrid-Alexandra (future Queen of Norway). Even Sverre Magnus, the 2nd child of Haakon and Mette-Marit, is not given the title of HRH. He’s not considered part of the Royal House even though he’s also the child of the future King.

    • lilix40 says:

      Thank you for the replies!

  18. Banskygirl says:

    They sell plastic shit that gives them little to no profit. One day ppl will find out they are a house of cards re. Money . The house they are in is mortgaged .

    • Ktx says:

      Yes, but haven’t they done quite well with all the plastic they’ve sold? And doesn’t Uncle Gary give them a generous helping hand? I didn’t think they were hurting financially.

    • UsedToBeLulu says:

      “The house they are in is mortgaged .”

      Dear God. Blasphemy.

      Did you know that there are actually smarter investments that you can make, than to pay cash for your house?

      • FLORC says:

        I think the point being made here is the Middletons didn’t have to move in the first place. They had a lovely and large home, but Carole started to complain a lot about security reasons when 2 girls knocked on her door to give her a gift they made for Kate. She directed them to give it to the Royal security for screening. They couldn’t pay outright for the home and rumors flew that William fronted them money. They chose a very large, extravagant estate. So yes you can make smart investments when you’d rather spread your money than buying a very large home for almost no other reasons than you feel you’re important enough for it.

  19. Talie says:

    I actually think it plays better with the public if they remain untitled, and it also plays better for George that he has a foot in a “common” household.

  20. LAK says:

    I read this yesterday with much laughter. They really want that title. And they are prepared to campaign for it. These people aren’t content to be Mr & Mrs Ordinary despite selling themselves as such.

    Right there, it tells you how much these people want to be aristos.

    And i can’t believe Christopher Wilson is so transparent in his efforts to promote this idea AS IF peerages are given out this way.

    Fact is, they aren’t handed out like this anymore or for silly things like birthing an heir. They are all government approved appointments these days for services rendered to the crown. The Middletons are backing up the wrong tree if they want one of these.

    Attempts to bully HM via the media will only fall on stony [rocky?] ground.

    I can see William lobbying to give them a title, but i would be very surprised indeed if they received one, even when he becomes King. Unless they prove themselves worthy via some sort of community service whatever that entails. Perhaps a few donations to the right political party so they can receive a knighthood. Many people have gone that route.

    The only thing The Queen can give them is her family orders since that is exclusively her decision to make. And she took years to give those to members of her own family let alone in-laws she really loves like Sophie.

  21. bettyrose says:

    How great is it that the future king has commoner grandparents? Doesn’t it make the entirely pointless monarchy just one tiny bit more relatable to the vast majority of subjects who are not titled?

    If they get titles for having done nothing other than groomed their daughter for marrying up, then just, ugh.

  22. Felicia in Houston says:

    I thought that a peerage was a carriage that smelled like pee. Now I am disappointed.

  23. Miss so and so says:

    Lord and Lady Ladderclimbers?

  24. Just So says:

    Why don’t they just buy one? Isn’t that what Conrad Black did?

  25. GirlyGirl says:

    I doubt it. The civil list is quickly shrinking and the peerage as a whole doesn’t have the money it used to.

    Also don’t these sorts of appointments have to pass the house of lords?

  26. mslewis says:

    I was under the impression the Middletons had already been offered a title and turned it down. That’s what a reporter on the TV news in the States said well before the baby was born.

    If that is untrue and they do want a title, I don’t see anything wrong with giving them one. It has been done before in British history so it can be done again. Perhaps not by the present Queen but when Charles is King, he will do whatever William wants.

    • bluhare says:

      I don’t buy Carole turning down a title at all, UNLESS it wasn’t a grand enough one. Sir Michael and Lady Carole probably doesn’t cut it. She wants Marquis or Earl. If they were Earl and Countess then James would be Viscount and Pippa would be Lady.

      • bettyrose says:

        I can see that. These days, “sir/dame” is really only granted to people who’ve done something to honor their British origins. Paul McCartney, Judi Dench . . . who’d want to be associated with them?

      • leuce7 says:

        James wouldn’t be Viscount unless Michael Middleton received a Viscounty as well. The son and heir of an earl can take his father’s next highest title as a courtesy title (though that doesn’t actually make him “THE Viscount Whatever”) until he inherits his father’s actual peerage.

        The rest of the sons (or, if their is no other title, all sons/daughters) take the courtesy title “Lord” or “Lady,” even though they aren’t themselves peers.

        So, when Charles met Diana, she was Lady Diana Spencer, since her father had already become the Earl Spencer. But when she was born, she was “The Honourable Diana Spencer” since her grandfather, the Earl, was alive, and so her dad was Viscount Althorp (courtesy title, not “THE actual Viscount”, since Grandpa is the ACTUAL holder of all the titles) at the time. When her brother (the current Earl Spencer) was born, Diana’s dad was still (courtesy) Viscount Althorp, and so her brother was the Honorable Charles Spencer. After Grandpa Earl died, Diana’s dad became the Earl Spencer, Diana became Lady Diana Spencer, and lil bro became (courtesy) Viscount Althorp. If there’d been another brother, he would have simply been Lord Brother Spencer.

        But, if there’s no Viscounty created along with the Earldom, then there’s no Viscount courtesy title. And even then, courtesy titles aren’t hereditary. So, even if James stood to inherit Earl Crumpets, Lady Pippa Crumpets would have to marry a titled peer for her children to get anything. Otherwise, she’s Lady Her husband’s common name, and her kids are commoners.

    • LAK says:

      The Middletons were offered a title but turned it down??!!!


      Question: Do you think a family that takes every opportunity to show off their new signet rings with their new coat of Arms would turn down an actual title?

    • bluhare says:

      LAK: Hell no!! They’ll even bump up the crest on the rings.

  27. Banskygirl says:

    Doesn’t it make it entirely pointless to marry a commoner for being common only to elevate them to what you are trying to get away from . Will is a true mindfuck.

  28. LahdidahBaby says:

    …waiting for the crested toilet tissue rolls.

  29. taxi says:

    I hope no hereditary title for Mr & Mrs Midds. The thought of it landing on James or Philippa someday is disturbing.

  30. ozmom says:

    Please stop saying crumpets. It was cute at first but its old now.

  31. Flower says:

    I think the only thing the Middleton’s have going for them in the public’s eye is that they are working class people and self made millionares, ‘just like us’ if they get a peerage for no other reason than being Williams in-laws that small amount of respect will stop.

    I think we will be seeing several articles aimed at testing public reaction to the idea over the next few months. The Royal Family has dug themselves out of the abyss over the past decade this would drop them right back in it. Not to mention that the marriage might not last.

    That said I do like Michael he seems gentlemanly and modest, but the rest of the clan are gruesome.

    Elizabeth might let this percolate and leave it for Charles to eventually decide when he becomes king.

  32. Suze says:

    What’s the point of the aristocracy if anyone can get in?

  33. Snap Happy says:

    Just curious where all the Middleton dislike comes from? How have they behaved (esp. Carole) to gain the reputation as ruthless social climbers? Their daughter married the heir to the throne did they have a choice other than go for the ride with Kate?
    First time poster from the US

    • Elise says:

      Snap Happy, you can do your own research and go back to when Catherine and William’s relationship started in 2002 (and not just start when they got engaged in 2010). Then you can form your own opinion. I think there is a consensus that the Middletons have achieved their wealth because of hardwork and dedication, and that is certainly something to be admired. As far as those traits passing on to their children, Catherine, Pippa and James, is each one’s opinion.

  34. Gopher says:

    all we need for dad middleton is a captains hat and his title could be admiral

  35. Bijlee says:

    LOL! someone called their son the half-blood prince. I died laughing. Just too funny to me.

  36. Elise says:

    The question is WHY should they be given titles. Is it because William likes them? And I certainly don’t buy that “because the grandparents of Prince George/the future king should be titled.” It’s a hollow and superficial excuse, because we all know there are other individuals in the UK who are more deserving of these titles/recognition through their public service and sacrifice for their country. If William ends up giving them titles, he is more unintelligent and spineless than I thought.