Titles of the Edinburgh Children

[cepe]

The Dukedom of Edinburgh is a future possibility for Edward. Not carved in stone. The statement on any future children addressed the fact he's an earl.

But since you gain titles and not lose them, Edward would still retain his current peerage if granted a dukedom. So Louise stays a Lady no matter what. James would have an option I suppose between viscount and earl.

As any title is honorary, then I think the decision would be with Edward. Custom and practice is that the son of a Duke uses the Earldom as his honorary title.

 

[RoyalHighness 2002]

But when the press release about Edward gaining the Dukedom of Edinburgh is possibly made it could also announce a change of the children/teenagers (most likely) to their royal styles and titles.

 

[Rudolph]

As any title is honorary, then I think the decision would be with Edward. Custom and practice is that the son of a Duke uses the Earldom as his honorary title.

The earldom of Wessex would not be a subsidiary title to the dukedom of Edinburgh. It's substantive.

James could not use his father's earl of Wessex. Edward's new dukedom would have to have it's own subsidiary title of earl for James to use it.

Otherwise he'd stay Viscount Severn. I edited my previous post.

 

[Skippyboo]

The Dukedom of Edinburgh is a future possibility for Edward. Not carved in stone. The statement on any future children addressed the fact he's an earl.

But since you gain titles and not lose them, Edward would still retain his current peerage if granted a dukedom. So Louise stays a Lady no matter what. James would have an option I suppose between viscount and earl.

Edit: Although Earl of Wessex is not a subsidiary title. Were he created a duke he'd be HRH The Duke of Edinburgh and Earl of Wessex.

James stays a Viscount then.

All the Royal Dukes also have Earldoms but they use the higher title of Duke. Occasionally we see in Scotland, using the Scottish title as with the Cambridges but we don't see William being referred to as Duke of Cambridge and Earl of Strathearn. King Charles will have to issue a LP to create his brother Duke of Edinburgh. Since Edward already has a Earldom and Viscountcy, it's likely that Edward would not get lower supporting titles to go along with his Dukedom. It's a new creation for Edward, so it doesn't come with the titles attached to Philip's creation of Duke.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Those family members who do not hold British Royal Titles and therefore are not British Royals, like Zara, are not members of the British Royal Family. [...] The British Royal Family is the individuals in the Queen's family who also hold British Royal titles.

Do we know that?

The earldom of Wessex would not be a subsidiary title to the dukedom of Edinburgh. It's substantive.

James could not use his father's substantive title of earl of Wessex. Edward's new dukedom would have to have it's own subsidiary title of earl for James to use it.

Otherwise he'd stay Viscount Severn. I edited my previous post.

Viscount Severn is a substantive title held by the Earl of Wessex. The eldest son of a duke, marquess, or earl customarily uses his father's second highest substantive title as a courtesy title.

 

[duke of poliganc]

i think people here get it wrong when they think that james and Louise aren't prince/ss just because their father was made an earl and not a duke , even if he was made a royal baron his children still has the right to be styled and titled HRH prince/ss of the united kingdom the title prince/ss doesn't come from the royal dukedoms but from the fact that they are male line grandchildrens of the monarch it doesn't matter if he was made a duke or an earl king george v says the male line grandchildrens not the male line of the royal duke .

 

[HRHHermione]

i think people here get it wrong when they think that james and Louise aren't prince/ss just because their father was made an earl and not a duke , even if he was made a royal baron his children still has the right to be styled and titled HRH prince/ss of the united kingdom the title prince/ss doesn't come from the royal dukedoms but from the fact that they are male line grandchildrens of the monarch it doesn't matter if he was made a duke or an earl king george v says the male line grandchildrens not the male line of the royal duke .

It's not because their father is an Earl instead of a Duke- it's because their parents declined to have them styled as HRHs.

The topic has been debated to death.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

 

[duke of poliganc]

It's not because their father is an Earl instead of a Duke- it's because their parents declined to have them styled as HRHs.

The topic has been debated to death.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

i know but i always read here that they are styled as lady and viscount because they are styled as children of an earl if he was styled as a duke then they would have been a prince/ss

 

[VictoriaB]

i know but i always read here that they are styled as lady and viscount because they are styled as children of an earl if he was styled as a duke then they would have been a prince/ss

No, they would be Lady Louise and whatever Edward's subsidiary title was just as the children of Prince Edward, Duke of Kent and Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester are. Being a Duke or Earl makes no difference to whether they are Prince/Princess.

 

[Ish]

i think people here get it wrong when they think that james and Louise aren't prince/ss just because their father was made an earl and not a duke , even if he was made a royal baron his children still has the right to be styled and titled HRH prince/ss of the united kingdom the title prince/ss doesn't come from the royal dukedoms but from the fact that they are male line grandchildrens of the monarch it doesn't matter if he was made a duke or an earl king george v says the male line grandchildrens not the male line of the royal duke .

The statement released specifically said that any future children of the Earl and Countess of Wessex would by styled as the children of an Earl.

In the normal course of order, the male-line grandchildren of a British monarch would be HRH Prince(ss) Name (of any applicable territorial designation) unless he or she held any other titles, i.e.

• William has a Dukedom of his own, so he is no longer "of Wales" but rather HRH Prince William, The Duke of Cambridge
• Princess Alexandra was "of Kent" before her marriage, but became HRH Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Mrs Angus Ogilvy upon her marriage, then later Princess Alexandra, The Honrouable Lady Ogilvy when her husband was knighted

Children of a British Prince who are the great-grandchildren of a British monarch are styled as Lord/Lady Name unless other titles are applicable, they are the heir apparent of the heir apparent's heir apparent, or LPs have been issued to grant them further titles, i.e.

• The eldest son of the Duke of Kent is styled as the Earl of St Andrews, his father's subsidiary title
• The children of Prince Michael of Kent are styled as Lord Frederick Windsor and Lady Gabriella Windsor, despite their father not being a peer
• Prince George would have been a Prince regardless, as he's the heir apparent of the heir apparent (William) of the heir apparent (Charles) of the monarch
• Princess Charlotte would not have been a Princess at birth had LPs not been issued granting the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales royal titles when Kate was pregnant with George

 

[Ish]

No, they would be Lady Louise and whatever Edward's subsidiary title was just as the children of Prince Edward, Duke of Kent and Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester are. Being a Duke or Earl makes no difference to whether they are Prince/Princess.

Edward's children are not comparable to the children of the Dukes of Kent and Gloucester.

The male-line grandchildren of a monarch are covered by the 1917 LPs and are typically Prince(sse)s. The male-line great-grandchildren of a monarch (who are themselves children of a British Prince) are typically styled as Lord/Lady according to the 1917 LPs, unless they have a subsidiary title to use.

Edward's children are not styled according to either fashion, but rather as the children of an Earl, according to the Queen's Will and the statement that was released in 1999 when Edward married. This isn't readily apparent, because the titles that they use are the same as what they would be if they were styled as the children of a British Prince (simply because of their gender).

As the children of a British Earl they are Viscount Severn and Lady Louise; a second son would be Honourable Name.

As the children of a British Prince, they would be Viscount Severn and Lady Louise; a second son would be Lord Name.

As the male-line grandchildren of a British monarch they would/should be HRH Prince James of Wessex and HRH Princess Louise of Wessex.

 

[Dman]

It's time to get back the ORDERS of conversation.

 

[Skippyboo]

As a children of a British Earl, second son isn't a Honorable, he would be a Lord just like a daughter is a Lady. Eldest son gets the courtesy title. All other kids are Lord/Lady.

The Honorable for kids starts with a Viscount. David Linley kids are Honorable Charles and Margarita. Gets upgraded when David becomes Earl Snowden to Viscount Linley for Charles and Lady Margarita Armstrong Jones.

 

[Ish]

As a children of a British Earl, second son isn't a Honorable, he would be a Lord just like a daughter is a Lady. Eldest son gets the courtesy title. All other kids are Lord/Lady.

The Honorable for kids starts with a Viscount. David Linley kids are Honorable Charles and Margarita. Gets upgraded when David becomes Earl Snowden to Viscount Linley for Charles and Lady Margarita Armstrong Jones.

You should tell Earl Spencer's younger son, Hon. Edmund Spencer, that he's using the wrong courtesy title then.

Honourable, for sons, starts with Earls. For daughters it starts with Viscounts.

 

[VictoriaB]

Edward's children are not comparable to the children of the Dukes of Kent and Gloucester.

Yes, I am aware of that. I expressed myself badly but thank you for correcting me.

 

[Lee-Z]

Maybe HM just thought it all is too complicated to keep track who is eligable and all the fuzz it creates and decided she's not going to give out any RFO's anymore and just said to Charles: "You can give them all yours when you become king, i'm not gonna bother anymore" (the most RFO's she gave out was around her coronation as well)


well probably not, but let's face it, that guess is as good as any

 

[JessRulz]

test post.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Edward was given two titles at the time of his wedding - Earl and Viscount. They are both his titles.

James uses the lower title as a courtesy.

If Edward does get created Duke of Edinburgh he will then be the substantive holder of three titles - a Dukedom, an Earldom and a Viscountcy.

James would then use the second title - the Earldom - as a title as a courtesy and so would be referred to as Earl of Wessex but not The Earl of Wessex as Edward would still hold that title - just as he holds both the Earldom and Viscountcy now.

If James has a son while Edward is still alive - and thus an heir into the 2nd generation - that son would use Viscount Severn until James moved up to the Dukedom and then the son would use the Viscount title.

The term 'subsidiary' title doesn't mean that it can't be used by anyone other than the holder as all lower titles are subsidiary to the higher ranked title held by the title-holder.

 

[ada]

Edit: Although Earl of Wessex is not a subsidiary title. Were he created a duke he'd be HRH The Duke of Edinburgh and Earl of Wessex.

James stays a Viscount then.

Brilliant, Rudolph.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Viscount Severn is a substantive title held by the Earl of Wessex. The eldest son of a duke, marquess, or earl customarily uses his father's second highest substantive title as a courtesy title.

Absolutely correct and said more succinctly than I did later in the thread.

If Edward is created Duke of Edinburgh then his titles would be Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Wessex and Viscount Severn.

The second of those - Earl of Wessex would be the courtesy title of his heir (just as Earl of St Andrews is the courtesy title used by the heir to the Duke of Kent and the Earl of Ulster is used by the heir to the Duke of Gloucester).

A grandson would then use Viscount Severn as his courtesy title.

The substantive title holder would still be Edward while his lower titles would be used by his son and grandson.

 

[Rudolph]

My confusion was because Edward will be created Duke of Edinburgh by a separate patent from his existing earldom.

It was for this reason that I thought he would use both titles and James would carrying on with Viscount Severn.

But you're both correct. James will use Earl of Wessex.

 

[Rosena6]

Will the Wessex kids be made HRH in the future?

 

[Mbruno]

Will the Wessex kids be made HRH in the future?

I don't think so, but they should. It is their birth right, which was taken from them.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Will the Wessex kids be made HRH in the future?

It depends on how you view the current situation. Personally for me they are HRHs but they do not use their titles. There was never any legislation produced to formally take their birthright away from them.

Others believe, and have produced evidence to the fact, that The Queens Will is enough to mean they have been stripped of their HRH birthright.

What we can 99% assume is that when their father ultimately becomes Duke of Edinburgh their titles will change.

I don't think so, but they should. It is their birth right, which was taken from them.

Again, it depends if you believe it has been “taken” from them. Edward and Sophie made a decision for their children before they were born, a decision personally I think was right for them. Their position in line to the throne means HRHs weren’t necessary, they were never going to be working royals, and you just have to look at the flak and intrusion Beatrice and Eugenie have faced to see what Louise and James could have got/get. When a member of the royal family has an HRH, the public/press have the belief that they have a “right” to know that person inside and out. Their information is our information. Sophie and Edward have spared their children from that intrusion.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I don't think so, but they should. It is their birth right, which was taken from them.

Their 'birth right' was not taken from them.

The decision was made before they were born at the request of their parents and with the Queen's permission.

All that is needed for titles to be given or removed is that The Queen's Will is made known which it was in this case.

I wrote to BP to check this fact and had it confirmed by the palace itself - they aren't not and never will be HRHs without another monarch reversing what The Queen has made known to be her Will.

The intention, as I understand it, is to eventually move to only the children of the heir apparent being HRHs but the Queen didn't want to issue LPs to strip her cousins or Beatrice and Eugenie of HRHs but the intention is that eventually children of younger children will not pass on HRH at all. It is all part of the transition to a smaller royal family.

 

[JSH]

It depends on how you view the current situation. Personally for me they are HRHs but they do not use their titles. There was never any legislation produced to formally take their birthright away from them.

Others believe, and have produced evidence to the fact, that The Queens Will is enough to mean they have been stripped of their HRH birthright.

What we can 99% assume is that when their father ultimately becomes Duke of Edinburgh their titles will change.
.

For me as well, James and Louise are HRHs but do not use their titles.

When Edward becomes Duke of Edinburgh James's courtesy title will change, but Lady Louise will still be Lady Louise.

 

[Iluvbertie]

For me as well, James and Louise are HRHs but do not use their titles.

When Edward becomes Duke of Edinburgh James's courtesy title will change, but Lady Louise will still be Lady Louise.

So you don't agree with BP who told me that they are not HRHs as The Queen's Will has been made known.

I actually wrote and asked whether they were HRHs who weren't using them and they said 'no they weren't ever HRHs as The Queen's Will was made known in 1999 that they weren't to have those styles.'

 

[CrownPrincessJava]

So you don't agree with BP who told me that they are not HRHs as The Queen's Will has been made known.

I actually wrote and asked whether they were HRHs who weren't using them and they said 'no they weren't ever HRHs as The Queen's Will was made known in 1999 that they weren't to have those styles.'

This. Their HRH never existed for it to be "stripped"..

If you want to argue, the new succession laws should include peerage. IMHO, if Prince Edward is made DoE, it's Louise's birthright to inherit the title after her father, not James.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Not quite sure how you can say their HRHs never existed to be stripped as the are male line grandchildren of a monarch therefore by law entitled to HRHs.

Also unless it’s specified in the new issue that Louise can inherit, she won’t.

 

[Osipi]

Not quite sure how you can say their HRHs never existed to be stripped as the are male line grandchildren of a monarch therefore by law entitled to HRHs.

I think the statement that the Wessex children never had the HRH to begin with might have stemmed from the fact that the Queen's will in the matter was decided at the time of Edward and Sophie's marriage before any children were born.

If you want to argue, the new succession laws should include peerage. IMHO, if Prince Edward is made DoE, it's Louise's birthright to inherit the title after her father, not James.

The equal primogeniture ruling was amended in the Succession to the Crown Act in 2013. It deals only with matters pertaining to the line of succession. From what I've seen, the British Peerage is handled by a totally different set of laws and acts.