Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Tilia C.]

To my knowledge usually only the second highest title is used as courtesy title.

Forgive my ignorence: is Earl of Merioneth the second titel of the DoE? If so, after the title merges with the crown and can be re-issued to someone else: Is that really done in the same combination of titles? Eg. does the current Duke of Cambridge have the same combination of titles as the previous DoCa?

 

[Stefan]

To my knowledge usually only the second highest title is used as courtesy title.

Forgive my ignorence: is Earl of Merioneth the second titel of the DoE? If so, after the title merges with the crown and can be re-issued to someone else: Is that really done in the same combination of titles? Eg. does the current Duke of Cambridge have the same combination of titles as the previous DoCa?

Yes Earl of Merioneth is the second title of Prince Philip and Baron Greenwhich.
Butu usually it is not the same combination of titles that is used so it could be that Edweard is only created Duke of edinburgh in addition to his other Titles.

 

[Rudolph]

Another question regarding the titles of Prince Edward's children in the future.
The story so far:
Edward has been created Earl of Wessex and his son, James, as per tradition, uses one Edward's "secondary" title, "Viscount Severn" as a courtesy title.
The future:
When Edward is eventually created Duke of Edinburgh, he'll possibly have another secondary title a well. For argument's sake, let's imagine it's "Earl of Merioneth" like his father.

Edward will thus have 4 titles in total : a dukedom (Edinburgh), two earldoms (Wessex & Merioneth) and a viscountcy (Severn).

In this case, would James take both the secondary titles (Earl of Merioneth, Viscount Severn) as courtesy titles?

Those subsidiary titles go with the current creation. When the current dukedom merges with the crown a new creation will probably only be issued with one title. Edward will keep his current earldom.


Another thing to remember is being a HRH and prince carries with it no legal entitlements. The only 'advantage' is you can called yourself a prince. It doesn't change precedence or line of succession.

Prince Harry has no more legal standing than Peter Philips.

So the argument the Wessex children are 'legally' prince/ss is meaningless.

British courts don't rule on how the prerogative is implemented only whether the prerogative exists

In the case of royal styles and titles the prerogative clearly exists. How the Queen chooses to style members of her family is her business. Parliament has not legislated on this matter and the often quoted Letters Patent of 1917 were issued without the advice of government.

So if the Queen says the children of the Earl of Wessex are to be styled as the children of a non-royal earl then that's it.

 

[Queen Camilla]

In 1999, the Buckingham Palace announce that Edward's future children would be styled as children of an Earl and when the time comes Edward will be made Duke of Edinburgh.

In 2011, in a bid for equal rights, it was unanimously adopted amending the rules on the succession so that absolute primogeniture would apply rather than male preference primogeniture.

In 2012, The Queen issued Letters Patent stating that all the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales would have the title Prince or Princess and the style of Royal Highness.

If Charles becomes King in 2020 and follows his mother's request, is that not going backwards and giving a son something that a daughter is not receiving?

Does that not continue the male preference?

How can Charles turn around and grant Edward a Dukedom without granting his sister Princess Anne a Dukedom?

What happened in 2011 & 2012 should invalidate what was said in 1999.

 

[Osipi]

In 1999, the Buckingham Palace announce that Edward's future children would be styled as children of an Earl and when the time comes Edward will be made Duke of Edinburgh.

In 2011, in a bid for equal rights, it was unanimously adopted amending the rules on the succession so that absolute primogeniture would apply rather than male preference primogeniture,

In 2012, The Queen issued Letters Patent stating that all the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales would have the title Prince or Princess and the style of Royal Highness.

If Charles becomes King in 2020 and follows his mother's request, is that not going backwards and giving a son something that a daughter is not receiving?

Does that not continue the male preference?

How can Charles turn around and grant Edward a Dukedom without granting his sister Princess Anne a Dukedom?

What happened in 2011 & 2012 should invalidate what was said in 1999?

As far as I recollect, the amendment to allow equal primogeniture in the line of succession was something that Parliament and governments in the Commonwealth had to agree to and ratify. This applies only to the line of succession and does not apply whatsoever to peerages.

Two totally different things.

 

[Queen Camilla]

It would be a major backward step if Charles gave Edward a dukedom but not Anne.

 

[Osipi]

It would be a major backward step if Charles gave Edward a dukedom but not Anne.

I would be a major first ever event if he did. I'd also bet my last piece of pumpkin pie that Anne would decline any such offer of a dukedom. As I mentioned earlier, equal primogeniture does not affect peerages at this time but there are a few that have special remainders as far as the inheritance of a peerage goes.

Most peerages created these days too are lifetime peerages that do not pass down through the family.

 

[Skippyboo]

The changes to rules of accession only starts with the Cambridge children and kids born afterwards. It doesn't retroactive change Anne to Andrew's spot. Plus Anne already has an extra title in Princess Royal.

William's dukedom is only inheritable by male heirs. If the Queen was super concerned about gender equality. She could have made it so daughters could inherit the Dukedom but she didn't.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Ish]

It would be a major backward step if Charles gave Edward a dukedom but not Anne.

You're being absurd.

It has been British royal custom that upon marriage the sons of the monarch or the heir apparent are given a dukedom, while the husbands-to-be of daughters who don't have their own titles are given a peerage (which has typically become an earldom).

It is valid to say that this is sexist. It is valid to say that this should be remedied. It is ridiculous to say that this should be retroactively remedied to Anne without actually considering Anne (especially since the changes to the succession weren't nearly that retroactive).

When Anne married in 1973 her husband was offered a peerage. It was declined. When Anne was pregnant in 1977 her mother offered to grant her child titles, but that was declined. We don't have reason to believe that any title was offered when Anne married again in 1992, but if one was offered it was also declined. Anne and her family do not want to have a peerage. Her children have benefited from not having titles and neither want nor need them.

When Edward married it was decided that instead of going the usual Dukedom route he would be given a lesser title with the understanding that one day he would be given his father's title. It's rather a different situation. To go back and not grant that title would make Charles look bad. To force a title that she clearly doesn't want on his sister just in the interest of equality would make him a bit of a word that will get censored if I type it and really would have nothing to do with equality.

One day, when Charlotte gets married she should be given a dukedom - her own, not her husbands. When she has children they should have royal titles accorded to them as the grandchildren of a monarch, just as her brother's children will. Not doing so then would be continuing sexism, but changing things to alter Anne or her children's titles at this point is just silly.

 

[Ish]

The changes to rules of accession only starts with the Cambridge children and kids born afterwards. It doesn't retroactive change Anne to Andrew's spot. Plus Anne already has an extra title in Princess Royal.

William's dukedom is only inheritable by male heirs. If the Queen was super concerned about gender equality. She could have made it so daughters could inherit the Dukedom but she didn't.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

The changes to the succession apply to all children born after 2011, not just William's. It was retroactive for several children, but they were all that - children.

 

[Molly2101]

The discussion of boys overtaking girls came up initially when James was born in 2007 and he leapfrogged his sister Louise. That of course was discussed and it was seen as unfair to his sister who was pushed out of the way for her brother, but in reality it didn't really matter as they would never be the Monarch. I don't think it was really ever discussed in depth until William married and there was the possibility he might have a daughter first who would unfairly be placed after her brother.

With regards to Edward's title and it not being "fair" to not give Anne one - women just simply are not given Dukedom's in their own right. I also don't think Anne would accept it. Edward was made an Earl on his wedding day because he was always going to be made Duke of Edinburgh in future and to give him two Dukedom's would have been unnecessary.

 

[Skippyboo]

Thanks. I couldn't remember exactly far it went back to. I knew it covered George. Savannah and Isla were both girls and Mia doesn't have a sibling so they don't change. Any Gloucester or Kent grandkids really doesn't matter since they are so far down any ways.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[AdmirerUS]

One of the reasons people have always given me for why it is better to be a Duke than a Prince is that a Dukedom often comes with a source of income.

It works for Charles, but do we know what/any income comes from York to Andy? I have no memory of ever reading about that. If so, please enlighten me. But I have read that the Queen is picking up his tab. And does Phillip have an income from Edinburgh? (I'm thinking not).
Which reduces the value of a Duchy literally. More so if it comes with a historic pile of bricks that is falling apart with no income to fix the place up.
Anne, on the other hand may not be a Duke but owns/was given a tidy pile that she runs (I assume) as a self sustaining horse farm. Which is what I've always assumed was Anne's dream job anyway.

 

[Iluvbertie]

1. The topic of changing the succession to first born regardless of gender was discussed when Diana was pregnant with William. Once he was a boy it was put on the backburner for another generation.


2. Despite the Succession to the Crown Act The Queen still only made William's title male only succession - which could theoretically see it pass outside the monarch e.g. William dies, George inherits, has a daughter than a son and then George dies - son inherits Cambridge and daughter inherits throne. Clearly The Queen saw no need to worry about the line of succession to the Cambridge title for inheritance purposes and she has only created male line successors for her other sons as well.


3. There is no money associated with either the York, Edinburgh, Kent, Gloucester or Cambridge titles. The main reason for giving these titles to the sons was, historically, to prevent them from standing for election to the House of Commons. As Princes of the Realm they were commoners and so eligible to stand but as Peer of the Realm they had seats in the House of Lords (no longer of course). Dukedoms haven't come with money or lands since the middle ages except for Lancaster and Cornwall - and these titles are automatic and not inherited or created. The monarch holds Lancaster while Cornwall is held by the heir apparent who is also the eldest son of the monarch (as the laws around Cornwall currently stand IF Charles were to predecease The Queen, William would not become Duke of Cornwall or Duke of Rothesay in Scotland but he could still be created Prince of Wales - he also wouldn't be eligible for the income of the Duchy). There has been talk of amending these laws to make the qualification only the 'heir/heiress apparent' but until the need arises I suspect they will just wait it out. Other non-royal dukes were usually already the holders of large estates or were given large estates by the crown to support them in an appropriate style e.g. Marlborough and Wellington.

 

[EllieCat]

With regards to Edward's title and it not being "fair" to not give Anne one - women just simply are not given Dukedom's in their own right.

There was Princess Alexandra, wife of Prince Arthur of Connaught, who was The Duchess of Fife in her own right; she succeeded her father.

 

[Ish]

The discussion of boys overtaking girls came up initially when James was born in 2007 and he leapfrogged his sister Louise. That of course was discussed and it was seen as unfair to his sister who was pushed out of the way for her brother, but in reality it didn't really matter as they would never be the Monarch. I don't think it was really ever discussed in depth until William married and there was the possibility he might have a daughter first who would unfairly be placed after her brother.

With regards to Edward's title and it not being "fair" to not give Anne one - women just simply are not given Dukedom's in their own right. I also don't think Anne would accept it. Edward was made an Earl on his wedding day because he was always going to be made Duke of Edinburgh in future and to give him two Dukedom's would have been unnecessary.

There have been British Duchesses in their own right in the past. Barbara Villiers is one such woman - a mistress of Charles II, she was created Duchess of Cleveland in her own right.

There haven't been many female peers in the past owing to most successions only passing to men. However, I believe this is something that has been debated and there was or is an attempt by Parliament to remedy that. The Queen can't do anything (other than making new hereditary peerages gender equal, which she's not done) to change the situation for existing peerages as only Parliament has that power.

Thanks. I couldn't remember exactly far it went back to. I knew it covered George. Savannah and Isla were both girls and Mia doesn't have a sibling so they don't change. Any Gloucester or Kent grandkids really doesn't matter since they are so far down any ways.

I believe one of the Kent grandchildren is the first person whose place in the succession was changed because of it. I could be wrong about that. The way they did it always struck me as a little odd; it's retroactive to when they decided to make the changes (2011), but by choosing that date they didn't really change the succession for anyone hire up in it - of the Queen's descendants, Anne and her descendants are displaced by Andrew, Edward, and their descendants and Louise is displaced by James. I understand why it wouldn't be changed to allow for Anne (it's silly to make it retroactive by a good 50 years, especially given the huge size of the succession), but I still find it odd that they didn't date it to before Louise's birth.

 

[Skippyboo]

The odds of the throne ever getting to Louise and James is very slim so they probably weren't too concerned about going back that far. They just had to get William's children covered since the throne goes through William's line.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[LauraS3514]

I believe one of the Kent grandchildren is the first person whose place in the succession was changed because of it. I could be wrong about that. The way they did it always struck me as a little odd; it's retroactive to when they decided to make the changes (2011), but by choosing that date they didn't really change the succession for anyone hire up in it - of the Queen's descendants, Anne and her descendants are displaced by Andrew, Edward, and their descendants and Louise is displaced by James. I understand why it wouldn't be changed to allow for Anne (it's silly to make it retroactive by a good 50 years, especially given the huge size of the succession), but I still find it odd that they didn't date it to before Louise's birth.

The highest-ranked persons truly affected by the new rules were two grandsons of The Duke of Gloucester, Rufus Gilman (b 1 Nov 2012) and Tane Mahuta Lewis (b 25 May 2012.) They were ahead of their older sisters in line at their births, but "demoted" when the law took full effect in March 2015 as the first ones born after 28 October 2011 as stated in the Act who had older sisters. The powers-that-be chose the October 2011 date so as not to change the positions of anyone then living - even though it would not fully pass until 2015. What's often forgotten is that the Earl of St Andrews and Prince Michael of Kent got their places back in that same Act, having previously been disqualified because they married Catholics.

 

[Queen Camilla]

You're being absurd.

It has been British royal custom that upon marriage the sons of the monarch or the heir apparent are given a dukedom, while the husbands-to-be of daughters who don't have their own titles are given a peerage (which has typically become an earldom).

It is valid to say that this is sexist. It is valid to say that this should be remedied. I

When Edward married it was decided that instead of going the usual Dukedom route he would be given a lesser title with the understanding that one day he would be given his father's title. It's rather a different situation. To go back and not grant that title would make Charles look bad.

One day, when Charlotte gets married she should be given a dukedom - her own, not her husbands. When she has children they should have royal titles accorded to them as the grandchildren of a monarch, just as her brother's children will. Not doing so then would be continuing sexism, but changing things to alter Anne or her children's titles at this point is just silly.

No not absurd just realistic.

You are saying that Edward should receive something because it was promised to him before they changed the rules.

You are suggesting they continue the sexist policy but change it for Charlotte.

I am saying that Edward should not receive the title because Anne would not be given a title.

Going forward males and females should be treated equally.

If Edward did not receive the dukedom in 1999, he cannot receive it after 2011/2012/2015.

The same for Harry. He does not have it now so he should not be given a dukedom. (Or are you suggesting the sexist policy should continue for Harry?)

If going forward Beatrice or Eugenie will not receive a dukedom nor inherit a dukedom, neither should Harry nor Charlotte.

I originally thought Charlotte should receive a dukedom but changed my mind.
Why should Charlotte be handed a dukedom if Beatrice cannot inherit a dukedom?

IMO, dukedoms should cease to be passed out, except to the monarch & heir.

Their purpose has been reduced. They also suggest sexism.

Going forward the title of Duke Cambridge should not pass to George.

If Harry nor Edward receives a dukedom then no one except the usual
anti-Charles brigade would complain.

 

[Iluvbertie]

There have been British Duchesses in their own right in the past. Barbara Villiers is one such woman - a mistress of Charles II, she was created Duchess of Cleveland in her own right.

There haven't been many female peers in the past owing to most successions only passing to men. However, I believe this is something that has been debated and there was or is an attempt by Parliament to remedy that. The Queen can't do anything (other than making new hereditary peerages gender equal, which she's not done) to change the situation for existing peerages as only Parliament has that power.

The Queen could issue new LPs to recreate the titles so that if there is no male heir then heirs female could inherit but she can't unilaterally change the succession to titles or allow for first born to titles already existing.

The fact that she didn't issue the Cambridge title with any other than the standard 'heirs male' suggests that she really doesn't approve of the changes but, as a constitutional monarch, accepts the will of her various parliaments.

 

[Ish]

No not absurd just realistic.

You are saying that Edward should receive something because it was promised to him before they changed the rules.

You are suggesting they continue the sexist policy but change it for Charlotte.

I am saying that Edward should not receive the title because Anne would not be given a title.

Going forward males and females should be treated equally.

If Edward did not receive the dukedom in 1999, he cannot receive it after 2011/2012/2015.

The same for Harry. He does not have it now so he should not be given a dukedom. (Or are you suggesting the sexist policy should continue for Harry?)

If going forward Beatrice or Eugenie will not receive a dukedom nor inherit a dukedom, neither should Harry nor Charlotte.

I originally thought Charlotte should receive a dukedom but changed my mind.
Why should Charlotte be handed a dukedom if Beatrice cannot inherit a dukedom?

IMO, dukedoms should cease to be passed out, except to the monarch & heir.

Their purpose has been reduced. They also suggest sexism.

Going forward the title of Duke Cambridge should not pass to George.

If Harry nor Edward receives a dukedom then no one except the usual
anti-Charles brigade would complain.

I was going to explain why Anne shouldn't be given a dukedom but then I remembered I already did, and you couldn't be bothered to read it the first time.

Edward should be created DoE when the time comes because that is what his parents and brother have promised him and there's really no logical reason to deny it to him.

Charlotte should one day be created a Duchess in her own right because to not would be sexist.

Neither Beatrice nor Eugenie should be created Duchesses in their own right because they're the children of the second son of the monarch, not the first.

But then, if you weren't trying to start an argument here you'd have figured that out on your own. And in the interest in not continuing an argument, this will be the last I have to say on this part of the issue.

 

[Ish]

The Queen could issue new LPs to recreate the titles so that if there is no male heir then heirs female could inherit but she can't unilaterally change the succession to titles or allow for first born to titles already existing.

The fact that she didn't issue the Cambridge title with any other than the standard 'heirs male' suggests that she really doesn't approve of the changes but, as a constitutional monarch, accepts the will of her various parliaments.

I knew she could do that for a title that didn't have an heir - didn't she do it for Lord Mountbatten? - but I didn't think she could do it for just any (or every) title. If a title isn't on the verge of extinction is she able to recreate the LPs still? Will the male heirs not have grounds to protest their displacement (or would they still inherit the original title?)

I do agree with you on what is likely to be her stance regarding female succession. If I remember, Charles wasn't a big fan of the changes either, or perhaps it was just the speed with which they seemed to have been implemented (or were being implemented at the time).

 

[Skippyboo]

I believe when Mountbatten was made an Earl. He only had 2 daughters and his wife was in mid 40s so unlikely to have a son. The only women that can inherit the title are the daughters of Louis Mountbatten. His eldest has it now and it passes down through males descendants if they died out, it goes to her younger sister and then her male descendants. So the woman inheriting is only for one generation not future ones.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Iluvbertie]

Edward VII recreated the Fife Dukedom - again only for one generation - so it could pass through his granddaughters rather than die out as his daughter didn't have a son.

My suggestion though is that if there was no male heir and therefore the title would become extinct why not allow a female heir to inherit? A number of titles have become extinct simply because there was no male heir - however distant - even though there were female heirs and, in the case of my family's title (very distant cousins) the two daughters both had sons but the title became extinct.

 

[NotHRH]

Before so many too many people cry "sexism," I would hope one would really think about how so very complicated styles/titles in the BRF (and other royal families) would become. The Swedish royal family is somewhat the start of how complicated royal titles will become in the future. In most of the western world, with Spanish-speaking countries the exception, children (born in wedlock) get their surname from their father. I believe royal titles should also only be passed from father to their children, just as last names do. I know many countries have amended laws concerning this particular situation, but things are just much simpler if titles/surnames are solely "inherited" from the father. All I see is serious convolutions abound - TOO MANY HRH Prince/ss - for a moment, really think about it

 

[Iluvbertie]

In the UK only the children of the monarch, male line grandchildren and the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales and spouses of the men can pass on HRH. Realistically that means only William, Harry and Andrew can do so.


HRH isn't a title that can go for more than two generations e.g. Harry's children will be HRH when Charles is King but not his grandchildren. If, though he only has daughters then he can't pass on anything to his grandchildren e.g. Andrew's grandchildren can't get a title or style or even a surname from him as he only had daughters.


Under my suggestion Beatrice could inherit York so Andrew's grandchildren etc could have a style or title.

 

[Ish]

NotHRH, I disagree that allowing all the grandchildren of a monarch - through male or female lines - would make British styles and titles more complicated. British styles and titles are already fairly complicated, female inheritance won't make it worse. It will make more HRHs - at this time, if all the grandchildren of a British monarch, regardless of gender, had an HRH there would be six new HRHs; Viscount Linley and his wife, Lady Sarah Chatto, Peter Phillips and his wife, and Zara Tindall. 9 if the spouses of daughters were also made HRHs. That would take the BRF from being 22 people to 31 (33 if you include the Wessexes).

To bring that into what Bertie's said, I don't think that things should be changed now - the youngest female-line grandchild of a monarch is 34 year old Zara. It seems kind of silly to give a group of fully grown adults royal titles when we know they're not going to become working royals, and when it's very likely that their lives would be impeded by them. But when Charlotte has children? It should be changed to allow her children to have royal titles from birth.

I do agree that titles should be recreated to allow for absolute primogeniture as they begin to face extinction. I also think that future hereditary titles should be created with absolute primogeniture as well. We're not going to see this happen under the Queen's reign - the Queen has shown that while she's willing to accept the changes her parliaments wish to enact on the issue, she's not willing to implement change herself - but it would be nice to see things change under Charles and William. That could create some problems though - if the DoE title were to be recreated with absolute primogeniture, then Louise would inherit it while James inherits the Earl of Wessex title, and I think even if the DoY title was recreated to allow Beatrice to inherit, if both of Edward's children were to inherit peerages, Andrew likely wouldn't be happy with only one of his children getting one.

 

[Skippyboo]

The Royal dukedoms go extinct but are then recreated in the future. You had Dukes of York, Clarence, Gloucester in the Plantagenet era. Victoria's second of son was the Duke of Edinburgh. The previous last dukes of Cambridge were the son and grandson of George III.

If you had absolute primogeniture, the titles would rarely go extinct and would not be able to use for future royals.

Also if you change the titles inheritance for royal titles, what about the rest of the non Royal aristocratic titles. What about men taking a title from his wife? A man becomes a knight, he becomes Sir, his wife a Lady, but a woman becomes a Dame, her husband is just Mr.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Mbruno]

The Royal dukedoms go extinct but are then recreated in the future. You had Dukes of York, Clarence, Gloucester in the Plantagenet era. Victoria's second of son was the Duke of Edinburgh. The previous last dukes of Cambridge were the son and grandson of George III.

If you had absolute primogeniture, the titles would rarely go extinct and would not be able to use for future royals.

Also if you change the titles inheritance for royal titles, what about the rest of the non Royal aristocratic titles. What about men taking a title from his wife? A man becomes a knight, he becomes Sir, his wife a Lady, but a woman becomes a Dame, her husband is just Mr.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

There is currently a bill before the House of Lords which, if passed, will introduce male-preference primogeniture (as opposed to equal primogeniture) in the succession to hereditary peerages. It is unclear if the bill will ever become law though.

On the royal dukedoms, my personal preference is that they should become personal, non-hereditary titles associated with a particular territorial designation within the UK, like the royal duchies in Sweden for example. That way, the title could be reused over several royal generations.

 

[NotHRH]

NotHRH, I disagree that allowing all the grandchildren of a monarch - through male or female lines - would make British styles and titles more complicated. British styles and titles are already fairly complicated, female inheritance won't make it worse. It will make more HRHs - at this time, if all the grandchildren of a British monarch, regardless of gender, had an HRH there would be six new HRHs; Viscount Linley and his wife, Lady Sarah Chatto, Peter Phillips and his wife, and Zara Tindall. 9 if the spouses of daughters were also made HRHs. That would take the BRF from being 22 people to 31 (33 if you include the Wessexes).

To bring that into what Bertie's said, I don't think that things should be changed now - the youngest female-line grandchild of a monarch is 34 year old Zara. It seems kind of silly to give a group of fully grown adults royal titles when we know they're not going to become working royals, and when it's very likely that their lives would be impeded by them. But when Charlotte has children? It should be changed to allow her children to have royal titles from birth.

I do agree that titles should be recreated to allow for absolute primogeniture as they begin to face extinction. I also think that future hereditary titles should be created with absolute primogeniture as well. We're not going to see this happen under the Queen's reign - the Queen has shown that while she's willing to accept the changes her parliaments wish to enact on the issue, she's not willing to implement change herself - but it would be nice to see things change under Charles and William. That could create some problems though - if the DoE title were to be recreated with absolute primogeniture, then Louise would inherit it while James inherits the Earl of Wessex title, and I think even if the DoY title was recreated to allow Beatrice to inherit, if both of Edward's children were to inherit peerages, Andrew likely wouldn't be happy with only one of his children getting one.

Wow! This is exactly my point - an exponentially convoluted sticky mess. Everything in life cannot be politically correct. Although this is a lighthearted subject, political correctness is beginning to degrade society into utter chaos. :/