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.

10 Rad Gifts for Hikers

Greg Rosenke/Unsplash
Greg Rosenke/Unsplash

The popularity of bird-watching, camping, and hiking has skyrocketed this year. Whether your gift recipients are weekend warriors or seasoned dirtbags, they'll appreciate these tools and gear for getting most out of their hiking experience.

1. Stanley Nesting Two-Cup Cookset; $14

Amazon

Stanley’s compact and lightweight cookset includes a 20-ounce stainless steel pot with a locking handle, a vented lid, and two insulated 10-ounce tumblers. It’s the perfect size for brewing hot coffee, rehydrating soup, or boiling water while out on the trail with a buddy. And as some hardcore backpackers note in their Amazon reviews, your favorite hiker can take the tumblers out and stuff the pot with a camp stove, matches, and other necessities to make good use of space in their pack.

Buy it: Amazon

2. Osprey Sirrus and Stratos 24-Liter Hiking Packs; $140

Amazon

Osprey’s packs are designed with trail-tested details to maximize comfort and ease of use. The Sirrus pack (pictured) is sized for women, while the Stratos fits men’s proportions. Both include an internal sleeve for a hydration reservoir, exterior mesh and hipbelt pockets, an attachment for carrying trekking poles, and a built-in rain cover.

Buy them: Amazon, Amazon

3. Yeti Rambler 18-Ounce Bottle; $48

Amazon

Nothing beats ice-cold water after a summer hike or a sip of hot tea during a winter walk. The Yeti Rambler can serve up both: Beverages can stay hot or cold for hours thanks to its insulated construction, and its steel body (in a variety of colors) is basically indestructible. It will add weight to your hiker's pack, though—for a lighter-weight, non-insulated option, the tried-and-true Camelbak Chute water bottle is incredibly sturdy and leakproof.

Buy it: Amazon

4. Mappinners Greatest 100 Hikes of the National Parks Scratch-Off Poster; $30

Amazon

The perfect gift for park baggers in your life (or yourself), this 16-inch-by-20-inch poster features epic hikes like Angel’s Landing in Zion National Park and Half Dome in Yosemite National Park. Once the hike is complete, you can scratch off the gold foil to reveal an illustration of the park.

Buy it: Amazon

5. National Geographic Adventure Edition Road Atlas; $19

Amazon

Hikers can use this brand-new, updated road atlas to plan their next adventure. In addition to comprehensive maps of all 50 states, Puerto Rico, Canada, and Mexico, they'll get National Geographic’s top 100 outdoor destinations, useful details about the most popular national parks, and points on the maps noting off-the-beaten-path places to explore.  

Buy it: Amazon

6. Adventure Medical Kits Hiker First-Aid Kit; $25

Amazon

This handy 67-piece kit is stuffed with all the things you hope your hiker will never need in the wilderness. Not only does it contain supplies for pain, cuts and scrapes, burns, and blisters (every hiker’s nemesis!), the items are organized clearly in the bag to make it easy to find tweezers or an alcohol wipe in an emergency.

Buy it: Amazon

7. Hiker Hunger Ultralight Trekking Poles; $70

Amazon

Trekking poles will help increase your hiker's balance and stability and reduce strain on their lower body by distributing it to their arms and shoulders. This pair is made of carbon fiber, a super-strong and lightweight material. From the sweat-absorbing cork handles to the selection of pole tips for different terrain, these poles answer every need on the trail. 

Buy it: Amazon

8. Leatherman Signal Camping Multitool; $120

Amazon

What can’t this multitool do? This gadget contains 19 hiking-friendly tools in a 4.5-inch package, including pliers, screwdrivers, bottle opener, saw, knife, hammer, wire cutter, and even an emergency whistle.

Buy it: Amazon

9. RAVPower Power Bank; $24

Amazon

Don’t let your hiker get caught off the grid with a dead phone. They can charge RAVPower’s compact power bank before they head out on the trail, and then use it to quickly juice up a phone or tablet when the batteries get low. Its 3-inch-by-5-inch profile won’t take up much room in a pack or purse.

Buy it: Amazon

10. Pack of Four Indestructible Field Books; $14

Amazon

Neither rain, nor snow, nor hail will be a match for these waterproof, tearproof 3.5-inch-by-5.5-inch notebooks. Your hiker can stick one in their pocket along with a regular pen or pencil to record details of their hike or brainstorm their next viral Tweet.

Buy it: Amazon

Sign Up Today: Get exclusive deals, product news, reviews, and more with the Mental Floss Smart Shopping newsletter!

This article contains affiliate links to products selected by our editors. Mental Floss may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.

Can the Electoral College Reverse the Results of an Election?

Tumisu, Pixabay // Public Domain
Tumisu, Pixabay // Public Domain

Every four years, people talk about the oddness of the Electoral College. And just like 2000's popular vote/Electoral College mismatch, after the 2016 election, some citizens attempted to flip electors from Donald Trump to either Hillary Clinton or a third candidate (if enough electors go to the third candidate, the House would then have to choose from among the top three).

Which leads to the question: Can the Electoral College actually change the results of the election? It’s an awkwardly worded question for a very specific reason, and the answer is no. But for the question people think that they’re asking—could the Electoral College reverse the results of the election?—the answer is yes, although it’s profoundly unlikely.

The reason it’s an oddly worded question is that the November election is not a vote for president. The vote is for a set of electors who will then go and vote for the president in December. Therefore, the electors cannot change the results of the election since they’re the ones being elected. In one of the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton explained the reasoning for forgoing direct democracy, as well as why they avoided letting politicians make the decision. Largely, the problem was that neither the public nor the politicians could be trusted. Hamilton wrote:

“The Executive should be independent for his continuance in office on all but the people themselves. He might otherwise be tempted to sacrifice his duty to his complaisance for those whose favor was necessary to the duration of his official consequence. This advantage will also be secured, by making his re-election to depend on a special body of representatives, deputed by the society for the single purpose of making the important choice.”

There were other issues the Founding Fathers were trying to avoid as well, such as the risk of a smorgasbord of regional candidates. As historian Jack Rakove told Stanford News in 2012, “it would become truly difficult to produce a popular majority with a field of favorite sons.”

More controversially, the Founding Fathers faced the issue of slavery. Because enslaved people couldn’t vote, a direct popular vote would weaken the power of the South. Thanks to the three-fifths compromise, however, the slave states had greater power under an electoral system than under a direct voting system, because enslaved people couldn’t vote but did count for the number of representatives. And more representatives meant more electors (the number of electors equals the state’s number of representatives plus the number of senators). As James Madison said in 1787:

“There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections.”

But objections to the elector’s powers appeared as soon as races got competitive. In 1796, Pennsylvanian Samuel Miles became the first known faithless elector when, despite being chosen as a Federalist, he voted for opposition candidate Thomas Jefferson. In a letter to the Gazette of the United States, a disgruntled Pennsylvania voter asked, “What, do I choose Samuel Miles to determine for me whether John Adams or Thomas Jefferson shall be President? No! I choose him to act, not to think.”

SO WOULD IT WORK?

As we have written about before, in about half the states plus Washington, D.C., electors are required to vote for their state’s popular vote winner—some states to the point that any attempt to defy this would forfeit the elector’s position. They’re extreme, but in the controversial 1952 Ray v. Blair case, the Supreme Court ruled that requiring pledges from electors to vote for a particular candidate was constitutional. But the question that remains unanswered is whether any punishment for breaking those pledges is constitutional. It’s never mattered, but would quickly become a critical issue if electors defected en masse.

Regarding the 2016 election, others say that because Hillary Clinton had already conceded, this strategy wouldn’t have worked. But there’s no requirement that an elector vote for a viable candidate. In 1976, one of the electors voted for Ronald Reagan, who hadn’t even won his party’s primary. In 1956, another elector voted for a local circuit court judge rather than Adlai Stevenson.

A stronger issue standing in the way is how electors are chosen. Generally, in spring and summer, each state’s political parties nominate a slate of electors from a list of party faithful. Any attempt to get defections would require electors to go against a party that chose them specifically for their loyalty.

The Ray v. Blair decision gave one of the most famous dissents in Supreme Court history, where Justice Jackson wrote, “No one faithful to our history can deny that the plan originally contemplated, what is implicit in its text, that electors would be free agents, to exercise an independent and nonpartisan judgment as to the men best qualified for the Nation's highest offices.” While it would be considered highly irregular and is highly unlikely, the possibility is there. And will remain there until January 6, 2021, when the votes are officially counted before a joint session of Congress.

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