I remember reading somewhere that there was something in the Gilded Age I'm searching for. It went something like, when the ballot box doesn't work, use the stump, when the stump doesn't work, use the gavel, and when the gavel doesn't work use a gun. The term was like "the four truths" or something. Does anyone remember what this could be? Google is useless. Therapyisgood (talk) 02:17, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Four boxes of liberty-Gadfium (talk) 03:18, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link Gilded Age. Term is likely to be unfamiliar to unAmericans. DuncanHill (talk) 20:41, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per Courtesy titles in the United Kingdom, the eldest son of a peer is entitled to use one of his father's lower titles (usually the second-highest) as a courtesy title. Does that mean that Prince George of Wales could in principle be called Duke of Cambridge and/or Duke of Cornwall, since his father's highest title is Prince of Wales? Our article never implies he does use those titles, but is there any legal/constitutional/traditional reason he couldn't? —Mahāgaja · talk 14:28, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First, members of the Royal Family with royal styles ("HRH" and "Prince"/"Princess") don't generally use courtesy titles. For example, the current Duke of Kent was known during his father's lifetime as HRH Prince Edward of Kent, rather than as the Earl of St Andrews (as his son is now styled, because he does not have a royal style). The only case I can think of in which this has happened involved someone entitled to a royal style but not actually using it: the Earl of Wessex (formerly Viscount Severn), who is technically HRH Prince James of Edinburgh (and before that was technically HRH Prince James of Wessex). So Prince George would only need a courtesy title if he dropped his royal style, and that sounds astronomically unlikely for someone who is in direct line to the throne. Second, the question as to whether "Prince of Wales" counts as a peerage title higher than a dukedom, such that the Prince of Wales's heir apparent can use a dukedom as a courtesy title, is not one that has ever needed to be answered (for the first reason above), so is entirely theoretical. (Until recently, I would have said that the answer was that Prince George's status as his father's heir apparent relates only to his father's hereditary titles, so the most he could be is Earl of Strathearn as heir apparent to the Dukedom of Cambridge; Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Chester and Earl of Carrick are all titles which would not pass to him were his father to die, so they should be discounted for these purposes. But then the Earl of Wessex mentioned above is so styled despite that being his father's highest hereditary title, the Dukedom of Edinburgh being a life peerage, so who knows any more.) Proteus (Talk) 15:06, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, I think that titles used by the royal family are all as agreed by the monarch - for example Princes of Wales only become so when the monarch says. "Entitled" doesn't really enter into it. Of course they then don't necessarily have to use the title. Johnbod (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wales and Chester are created anew by each monarch; the other titles of the heir apparent are automatic. Or so I misunderstand. —Tamfang (talk) 01:54, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The use of HRH and Prince/Princess titles is governed by letters patent which grant them automatically to people in certain categories (e.g. children of the monarch); people falling into those categories are indeed "entitled" to those styles. Proteus (Talk) 15:51, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Has this changed over time? IIRC from various reading, the younger sons of George III were and are generally referred to by their ducal titles. Or did they not have titles as princes? -- Avocado (talk) 01:15, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As is the younger son of King Charles. Prince Harry is the Duke of Sussex. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:05, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, he is Duke of Sussex because his grandma said so. It's not automatic (though his son's succession to the title will be). —Tamfang (talk) 01:28, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see where you're coming from. I wasn't commenting on the automaticity or otherwise of Sussex's title. Just confirming Avocado's comment "the younger sons of George III were and are generally referred to by their ducal titles" still applies today. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The difference to me at least is that I've basically never heard/read any of George III's sons (other than George IV when Regent) referred to as "Prince", only as "Duke of <Clarence, Cambridge, etc...>". Whereas I've basically never heard Prince Harry referred to as "Duke of Sussex", only "Prince Harry"; similarly for Charles III's siblings. So (at least from the POV of this uneducated American) it seems like convention -- even if only vernacular convention or popular media convention -- has changed. -- Avocado (talk) 23:03, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he gets Prince Harry a lot. But not exclusively. Certainly he and his wife are usually called "the Sussexes". It may depend somewhat on where in the world you are, and who's bringing you the news about his/their latest doings. Americans sometimes struggle with British titles: they seem to have come up with the term "belted earl" all by themselves, and knights and dames are as often as not called "Sir Smith" and "Dame Jones" rather than the correct form "Sir John Smith" and "Dame Elspeth Jones". Curiously, it's more correct to use only the given name than only the surname: Sir John and Dame Elspeth were caught in an especially piquant debauchery in flagrante delicto. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:02, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it could just be be the way American media reports. And at this point, they probably have no choice but to do it that way because most Americans would have no idea who they were talking about if they mentioned "the Sussexes" (I know I wouldn't have prior to this thread). Granted, I also don't read gossip columns, I mostly only hear about the British royal family when something is going on with them that's big enough to reach the front page of major aggregators. -- Avocado (talk) 13:16, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those were substantive peerages, which are indeed used. It is courtesy titles which are (generally) not. Proteus (Talk) 15:51, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]