How Do British Royals Get Their Titles?

Chris Jackson, Getty Images
Chris Jackson, Getty Images

The simple answer: You’re born with it, or Her Majesty gives it to you.

The noble titles of duke, duchess, earl, countess, and so on are relics of the peerage system, a hierarchy that conferred power to people in ye olde British political and landowning order. Members of the peerage system, called Peers, were the monarch’s vassals: They swore loyalty to the king or queen in exchange for money or land. In feudal times, these titles—and the jobs that came with them—were passed down to male heirs and their spouses.

Here’s how the system works:

At the top, of course, sits the king or queen. There are some special naming rules for the head of state. If a king sits on the throne, his wife is called the queen consort. However, if the queen is running the show—as is true at the present moment—her husband has no automatic right to a title. Prince Philip was a Prince of Greece, but renounced his title before marrying Elizabeth, so when Elizabeth became queen in 1952, he was properly referred to as the Duke of Edinburgh. Despite constant press references to him as “Prince Philip,” that title only became official in 1957, when Elizabeth II conferred “the style and titular dignity of a prince” on her husband. The sovereign is considered the “fount of honour” and has the exclusive right of conferring titles. All ranks must first meet his or her approval.

The highest peerage titles are duke and duchess. Traditionally, the duke was the sovereign ruler of a duchy or dukedom (a large swath of land) and the title is frequently, but not always, given to a member of the royal family. (That’s why you see royals flaunting territorial titles such as the “Duke of Cornwall” or “Duchess of Cambridge.”) Currently there are 30 dukes, and those titles will be passed down to their male heirs.

It’s expected that Queen Elizabeth II will give Prince Harry the title of Duke of Sussex after his wedding. And while Harry will remain a prince, his soon-to-be wife, Meghan Markle, will not inherit the title of princess—she will simply become a duchess. (If Harry isn't named a duke, Markle will likely be called "Princess Henry of Wales"—using Harry's real name—but never Princess Meghan.)

The step below duke is marquess or marchioness. The title was traditionally given to a duke-like noble who oversaw a Welsh or Scottish march, or border territory. Like a duke, a marquess held responsibility over a large mass of land. Unlike a duke, however, a marquess had the extra responsibility of defending this frontier from invaders. There are about 34 marquess positions, and the titles are generally inherited by the first-born son.

Under that is earl and countess. Originally, an earl was a do-it-all governor-judge-cop-taxman. He could be the administrator of a shire, province, or county. He might also be responsible for collecting taxes and fines and playing the part of judge or sheriff. He was often entitled to receive every “third penny”—that is, one third!—of all judicial revenues. The title is hereditary, though it's not unheard of for the reigning monarch to give a former prime minister an earldom.

One step below that is viscount and viscountess. Back in feudal days, the viscount was exactly what it sounds like: a “vice count,” a deputy or lieutenant who served the earl. The title is often given to the children of earls, however the rank may overlap with other titles: A handful of dukes and earls pull double-duty as viscounts. The title has also been awarded to outgoing Speakers at the House of Commons.

The lowest rank in the traditional peerage system is that of baron and baroness. The baron acted as the sovereign's "tenant-in-chief" and possessed a number of fiefs—basically a subdivision of a county. A baron’s rank, as well as his land, was usually passed down to an heir. (From 1876 to 2009, prominent lawyers and judges were eligible for the title of baron to create the equivalent of a Supreme Court, but that practice was repealed when a real Supreme Court began.) Today, there are more than 400 baronies.

Nowadays, it’s easy to wave off these fancy titles as antiquated symbols of a dead political system. But the truth is, hereditary peers still hold significant political power in England. For centuries, peers (all male until 1958)—called “Lords”—occupied the upper house of British Parliament: the aptly titled “House of Lords.” In 1999, a bill weakened their power considerably. Yet 92 hereditary peers still sit in the House of Lords, drafting and reviewing legislation.

If you’re not a noble, you still have a chance at earning one of their titles without having to go through the trouble of a royal wedding. In 1958, legislation introduced a new rung in the peerage ladder: life Peer. Heredity has nothing to do with these titles. This distinction, which is nominated by the Prime Minister and appointed by the Crown, has been awarded to prominent doctors, professors, veterans, business owners, and farmers. And while you can’t pass your title down to your children, the position does land you a comfy seat in the House of Lords. So get cracking on building that resume!

Have you got a Big Question you'd like us to answer? If so, let us know by emailing us at bigquestions@mentalfloss.com.

How Much Is Game of Thrones Author George RR Martin Worth?

Kevin Winter, Getty Images
Kevin Winter, Getty Images

by Dana Samuel

Unsurprisingly, Game of Thrones took home another Emmy Award earlier this week for Outstanding Drama Series, which marked the series' third time winning the title. Of course, George RR Martin—the author who wrote the books that inspired the TV show, and the series' executive producer—celebrated the victory alongside ​the GoT cast.

For anyone who may be unfamiliar with Martin's work, he is the author of the A Song of Ice and Fire series, which is the epic fantasy series that led to the Game of Thrones adaptation. Basically, we really we have him to thank for this seven-year roller coaster we've been on.

At 70 years old (his birthday was yesterday, September 20th), Martin has had a fairly lengthy career as an author, consisting of a number of screenplays and TV pilots before A Song of Ice and Fire, which, ​according to Daily Mail he wrote in the spirit of The Lord of the Rings.

 Cast and crew of Outstanding Drama Series winner 'Game of Thrones' pose in the press room during the 70th Emmy Awards at Microsoft Theater on September 17, 2018 in Los Angeles, California
Frazer Harrison, Getty Images

Martin sold the rights to his A Song of Ice and Fire series in 2007, and he truly owes the vast majority of his net worth to the success of his novels and the Game of Thrones TV series. So how much exactly is this acclaimed author worth? According to Daily Mail, Martin makes about $15 million annually from the TV show, and another $10 million from his successful literary works.

According to Celebrity Net Worth, that makes Martin's net worth about $65 million.

Regardless of his millions, Martin still lives a fairly modest life, and it's clear he does everything for his love of writing.

We'd like to extend a personal thank you to Martin for creating one of the most exciting and emotionally jarring storylines we've ever experienced.
We wish Game of Thrones could go ​on for 13 seasons, too!

Why Do Supreme Court Justices Serve for Life?

Alex Wong, Getty Images
Alex Wong, Getty Images

There are few political appointments quite as important as a nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. Unlike a cabinet secretary or an ambassador, justices serve for life. In the modern era, that often means more than three decades on the court—thanks to increased lifespans, justices appointed in the next century are expected to sit on the Supreme Court for an average of 35 years, compared to the average of around 16 years that judges served in the past. Because of this shift, some scholars have begun to question whether lifetime appointments are still appropriate, as the definition of “for life” has changed so much since the constitution was written. But why do justices serve for life, anyway?

Well, for one thing, the U.S. Constitution doesn’t exactly specify that justices and the court are in a “’til death do us part” relationship. Article III says that judges (of both the Supreme Court and lower federal courts) “shall hold their offices during good behavior.” So technically, a judge could be removed if they no longer meet the “good behavior” part of the clause, but there are otherwise no limits on their term. In practice, this means they have their seat for life, unless they are impeached and removed by Congress. Only 15 federal judges in U.S. history have ever been impeached by Congress—all lower court judges—and only eight have been removed from office, though some have resigned before their inevitable removal.

The only Supreme Court justice Congress has tried to impeach was Samuel Chase, who was appointed by George Washington in 1796. Chase was an openly partisan Federalist vehemently opposed to Thomas Jefferson’s Democratic-Republican policies, and he wasn’t afraid to say so, either in his role as a lower court judge or once he was appointed to the Supreme Court. In 1804, the House of Representatives, at then-president Jefferson’s urging, voted to impeach Chase, accusing him, among other things, of promoting his political views from the bench instead of ruling as a non-partisan judge. However, he was acquitted of all counts in the Senate, and went on to serve as a Supreme Court justice until his death in 1811.

The point of giving justices a seat on the bench for the rest of their lives (or, more commonly nowadays, until they decide to retire) is to shield the nation’s highest court from the kind of partisan fighting the Chase impeachment exemplified. The Supreme Court acts as a check against the power of Congress and the president. The lifetime appointment is designed to ensure that the justices are insulated from political pressure and that the court can serve as a truly independent branch of government.

Justices can’t be fired if they make unpopular decisions, in theory allowing them to focus on the law rather than politics. Justices might be nominated because a president sees them as a political or ideological ally, but once they’re on the bench, they can’t be recalled, even if their ideology shifts. Some data, for instance, suggests that many justices actually drift leftward as they age, no doubt infuriating the conservative presidents that appointed them.

The lack of term limits “is the best expedient which can be devised in any government, to secure a steady, upright and impartial administration of the laws,” Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist No. 78. The judiciary, he believed, “is in continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed, or influenced by its coordinate branches,” and “nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence, as permanency in office.” Without lifetime job security, he argued, judges might feel obligated to bow to the wishes of the president, Congress, or the public, rather than confining their work strictly to questions of the Constitution.

While lifetime appointments may be a longstanding tradition in the U.S., this approach isn’t the norm in other countries. Most other democracies in the world have mandatory retirement ages if not hard-and-fast term limits for high court judges. UK Supreme Court justices face mandatory retirement at age 70 (or 75 if they were appointed before 1995), as do judges on Australia’s High Court. Canadian Supreme Court justices have a mandatory retirement age of 75, while the 31 justices of India’s Supreme Court must retire by the age of 65. Meanwhile, the oldest justice now on the U.S. Supreme Court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, is currently 85 and kicking. Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., the oldest justice in U.S. history, retired in 1932 at age 90.

Though the U.S. Supreme Court has never had term limits before, there have recently been serious proposals to implement them. Term limits, advocates argue, could combat partisan imbalances on the court. Presidents wouldn’t get to appoint justices purely based on whether someone died while they were in office, and the stakes for political parties nominating a justice would be slightly lower, possibly leading presidents and Congress to compromise more on appointments. One popular suggestion among political analysts and scholars is to impose an 18-year term limit, though critics note that that particular plan does bring up the potential that at some point, a single president could end up appointing the majority of the justices on the court.

In any case, considering such a change would likely require a constitutional amendment, which means it’s probably not going to happen anytime soon. For the foreseeable future, being on the Supreme Court will continue to be a lifetime commitment.

Have you got a Big Question you'd like us to answer? If so, let us know by emailing us at bigquestions@mentalfloss.com.

SECTIONS

arrow
LIVE SMARTER