Royal Dukes, Royal Duchies and Royal Ducal Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Heavs]

Looking at the sticky for the "Future of The DOE Title" I think this belongs here:

Allegedly Prince Charles isn't sure if he wants Prince Edward to be recreated DOE, despite the announcement at their wedding and Edward and Sophie recently talking about how Philip personally asked them to take it on. Not to mention his work with the DOE Awards.

For more than 20 years, the Earl of Wessex has been expecting to inherit his father’s title and become the Duke of Edinburgh one day. But his eldest brother is not so set on the idea, it has emerged.
The Prince of Wales, who holds his late father’s title, is understood to be reluctant to hand it over to Prince Edward, 57, the only of the Queen’s three sons not to hold a dukedom.
In 1999, when Edward married Sophie Rhys-Jones, the Queen gave him the earldom of Wessex, a title he chose.

On their wedding day, Buckingham Palace announced in a statement: “The Queen, the Duke of Edinburgh and the Prince of Wales have also agreed that the Prince Edward should be given the Dukedom of Edinburgh in due course, when the present title held now by Prince Philip eventually reverts to the Crown.”
But those close to Prince Charles, 72, say his thinking has since shifted, and he is reassessing his plans for the future. A source who knows Charles, said: “The prince is the Duke of Edinburgh as it stands, and it is up to him what happens to the title. It will not go to Edward.” Another source close to the prince, said: “Edinburgh won’t go to them [the Wessexes] as far as the prince is concerned.”
Philip’s title passed to his eldest son upon his death in April, and will remain with Charles until his accession, when it will merge with the Crown. It will then be Charles’s decision whether to bestow it on Edward, another member of his family, or to leave it in abeyance.......

Edward is thought to be aware that his hope of becoming the next Duke of Edinburgh is not a done deal. In a television interview last month to mark what would have been Philip’s 100th birthday, he was asked: “You will be the next Duke of Edinburgh, when the Prince of Wales becomes king, that is quite something to take on?”
Edward replied: “It was fine in theory, ages ago when it was sort of a pipe dream of my father’s . . . and of course it will depend on whether or not the Prince of Wales, when he becomes king, whether he’ll do that, so we’ll wait and see. So yes, it will be quite a challenge taking that on.”

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...-but-his-brother-is-not-on-his-side-77v25z3b0

https://archive.ph/0XuTJ

Roya Nikkhah obviously has her sources but I hope this isn't true and there's no real reason for it not to be given since it was Prince Philip's wish for one of his sons to carry it on. I wonder if it is true then it's an emotional reaction to his father's death.

 

[Claire]

This story might be the remains of a story from 1999. There was a story in the press about how Charles felt sidelines by the Duke of Edinburgh's want for Edward to get the title. Charles wanted the title to remain with his line and therefore William and Harry.
Also it must be remembered that at the stage Edward was working outside of the family and the whole family situation was not what it was today.
For Charles to still think this, might be a little fantastical about the current situation. That been said I have been asked recently if it was possible to make the Princess Royal - the Duchess of Edinburgh, as it will be possible by the crown if Charles so desires.
Also as noted in Edward's recent interviews, he know it might not happen and doesn't seem to be concerned about it. It will just be a bit of a slight in the pubic eye as the wedding announcement was made rather clear.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

[...]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...-but-his-brother-is-not-on-his-side-77v25z3b0

https://archive.ph/0XuTJ

Roya Nikkhah obviously has her sources but I hope this isn't true and there's no real reason for it not to be given since it was Prince Philip's wish for one of his sons to carry it on. I wonder if it is true then it's an emotional reaction to his father's death.

Thank you for sharing this. Like you, I hope it is merely being floated to measure the mood and that the late Prince Philip will ultimately have his wishes fulfilled.

Two elements of the story strike me as out of the ordinary: that there is not the slightest hint regarding the motivation for the alleged change of plans, and that the anonymous sources baldly claim "it will not go to Edward" and "Edinburgh won't go to them" rather than hedging with more equivocal terms as one usually sees in these sorts of stories.

If true, the only potential reason which comes to my mind is a plan to sideline his siblings when he accedes to the throne.

 

[Prinsara]

There's also the double mention of a "safe pair of hands". It's not a particularly well-written or convincing piece, especially from the Times.

 

[Heavs]

Thank you for sharing this. Like you, I hope it is merely being floated to measure the mood and that the late Prince Philip will ultimately have his wishes fulfilled.

Two elements of the story strike me as out of the ordinary: that there is not the slightest hint regarding the motivation for the alleged change of plans, and that the anonymous sources baldly claim "it will not go to Edward" and "Edinburgh won't go to them" rather than hedging with more equivocal terms as one usually sees in these sorts of stories.

If true, the only potential reason which comes to my mind is a plan to sideline his siblings when he accedes to the throne.

Yes, I noticed there was no motivation given, that's why I wondered if it was an emotional reaction to his father's death. It does seem strange that there's no follow up just "nope".

Obviously it won't go to Harry or William now and it will be 20+ years or more before any of his grandchildren marry. With Harry, Meghan and Andrew gone I don't think Charles can afford to cut out Edward and Sophie (and Anne) from being working royals, even if all the patronages are slimmed down. The Monarchy still gets a lot of good will from the grunt work of visits which they're really good at.

There's also the double mention of a "safe pair of hands". It's not a particularly well-written or convincing piece, especially from the Times.

No it's not one of The Times best royal pieces just a couple of unexplained quotes and a recitation of what the Wessexes said and a history of the title. The reason I posted it is because RN can't be ignored as a reporter unlike if this was one of The Expresses 5000 per day contradictory royal "stories".

Whilst I'm sure they'll survive if they don't get it, I think the inclusion of the very touching story of Philip asking them to take it right before their wedding in one of the big interviews recently means that they would like it.

 

[Osipi]

Regardless if Charles wants his siblings sidelined when he accedes the throne, one thing really makes me think someone's been having a three martini lunch somewhere to come up with this story.

It's not only that its been stated for quite a while now that when the title of Duke of Edinburgh reverts to the Crown, its his parent's wishes that Charles recreates this dukedom for Edward, but also it's been Edward over the years that has invested a lot of time and energy into The Duke of Edinburgh Award.

Sure, it's possible that Charles may decide not to recreate the dukedom for Edward but for the life of me, I can't think of any good reason. Even with siblings not working for the "Firm", I seriously doubt Charles would want his brother to cease working and supporting the DoE Award. This award is one of the biggest legacy that Philip had created.

 

[Prinsara]

There's also the "what on Earth does Charles need it for?" and upending the notion that he and Ed have always gotten along relatively well, filming William at school blip aside. If Anne wanted a peerage in her own right, she probably would have taken it into consideration when she chose not to give any titles to her children decades ago, y'know?

Unless this is complete irrational jealousy on Charles' part to spite their father's favorite son (who as just mentioned he can't actually afford to alienate), it seems like an awful lot of logic is being left out of this one.

 

[Claire]

I doubt the Wessex's worry too much about it either way. I have been told that they expected to up their workload these last few years due to the retirement of the Duke of Edinburgh and the advancing age of the Kents. Regardless of what has happened in the family, they are still moving according to the plans that were placed out 5 years or so years ago. I don't think they will worry at all if they are not included in Charles's future plans for the monarchy. They, originally were not so no change then.

It also needs to be remembered that Charles is very adamant about his position and role as eldest son. He took affront to when items belonging to George VII were given to Andrew, David Linley and Edward and in the end the Queen had to take them back from the children that they had been given to. He similarly appears to have claimed ownership of the memory of Lord Mountbatten, over Mountbatten's own children and grandchildren. The problem in 1999 was simply. Philip was claiming an heir and it was not Charles. Maybe an arrangement can be done - Charles can get the title and be the custodian of Prince Philip's legacy. Edward got over 50 years with his father, that should be reward enough.

 

[Osipi]

Charles already has the title of Duke of Edinburgh now. That's why it has to revert to the Crown before it can be recreated for Edward. Regardless if it's recreated for Edward or not, as King, Charles will no longer hold the title Duke of Edinburgh. All of his titles he holds now revert to the Crown.

It would be a shame if Philip's title just laid dormant when the wishes of both parents was that Edward be created The Duke of Edinburgh. Just doesn't make sense at all to me.

 

[AC21091968]

I hope the allegation of not recreating Duke of Edinburgh for Edward once it merges with the Crown is false. Otherwise, it will make Charles look very jealous, heartless and spiteful, especially when one adds up the possibility (could be little of course) of him removing HRHs from his nieces, nephew or even Queen's cousins. Not only Charles would be not fulfilling his father's wish, but (as some poster have pointed out) it would also show that Charles is jealous that Edward is his father's favourite son who is heavily involved in the Duke of Edinburgh award.

Yes, there is a possibility that Edward would not be upset by Charles' decision (not recreating Duke of Edinburgh when it merges with The Crown). However, there is no point making a huge promise with Philip and only to be taken away by Charles.

 

[Erin9]

Royal Dukes, Royal Duchies and Royal Ducal Titles

I hope this isn’t true. This was Philip’s (and The Queen’s) wish. It would look very jealous, petty and small on Charles’ part not to re- create it for Edward.

It would be bad for his image to not do this IMO. Especially after the subject has recently been raised again. What a way for him to start his reign.

I do think it would be meaningful for Edward and Sophie to get it based on the recent interview where they tell the story of Philip asking if they’d like it. Though clearly he knows it’s not a done deal too. And, really, if anyone was to feel slighted it would seem like Andrew was a candidate. He was the oldest son who would have been able to use it day to day. (I’m sure that wasn’t Philip’s intent though. I figured he got DOY because it was a typical title of the 2nd son.)

Besides- Edward has done a lot of work for the DOE awards. It seems fitting. And he and Sophie are upping their profile. Some of that may have been coming anyway, but I have little doubt the loss of Andrew, Harry and Meghan have led to more on their plates.

 

[kathl29]

I have a lot of respect for Charles and am someone who feels that he will be a good King when his time comes.

I also agree with the slimming down of the monarchy in line with how this has been done in other Royal Families across Europe.

However, the DOE going to Edward was the wish of Philip and the Queen. Edward and Sophie are hard workers who provide a safe pair of hands and who in last 18 months have had to increase their profile which they have done with dignity and without complaint. Their work in the UK during the pandemic should be showing Charles why they should be getting the title rather than not unless there is an element of jealousy from Charles of all the positive media that Sophie in particular now gets. I would definitely be very disappointed if Charles decided to not honour the wish of granting this title to Edward and would actually lose some respect for him with that decision.

As much as I believe he has the potential to be a good king, Charles is going to need to tread very carefully at the start of his reign as whether he likes it or not some of these key decisions will shape how he is perceived by the media for the whole duration. Unlike his mother he is not going to have a long reign in which to change poor public perception if it gets off to a bad start.

 

[Moran]

This article sounds rather strange to me. Would Charles really share with a (very indiscreet) source that one of the first thing he plans to do after his mother's death is to disrespect her wishes, as well as those of his late father? And this at a time when nothing demands going into this matter. No one wails indignantly that Edward is going to get the title, no one insists that he should get it at all costs. It was just a non-matter. What would necessitate a conversation about this? This isn't a moment of crisis with leaks from the BP. Why would they leak about a matter no one was concerned about?

Honestly, I'm disappointed with Times. This article sounded like tabloid fodder. I've never seen a real royal source giving statements this firm.

 

[Iluvbertie]

This doesn't make sense as Charles has already agreed to this idea - as stated in 1999 when it was announced.

 

[BriarRose]

First, Charles can't pass the title until the Queen dies, making him King. And the Queen could absolutely live on for many more years, so what Charles may or may not be thinking in 2021 doesn't matter. I personally cannot imagine that Charles is discussing the DOE title with people right now, as he knows he can't personally do anything with it until he becomes King.

Second, though I have no issue with Edward getting the DOE title, it was bizarre to me that the Queen announced he would since she herself cannot grant it to Edward. By the terms of the letters patent that granted Phillip the DOE title, it had to pass down to his eldest living male heir. Yes, many people with multiple titles and children would like to split them up and spread them among their children, but that's not how the British peerage works. Perhaps the system should be changed. But personally, I have a minor issue with the person at the very top of the system publicly hinting that the rules should be bent for her kids, but no others. If the Queen wants to ensure her youngest son is a Duke, she should make him a Duke, and move on. Yes, the peerage isn't fair to youngest sons.

Third, Charles doesn't need it for his own sons, who are both royal dukes already. The York Dukedom is extremely likely to revert back to the crown unless Andrew shocks us all with a wedding and legitimate son. There are plenty of unused titles currently, and a future King can always create a new Dukedom as well. Charles is a bit peevish, IMHO, about status and right. However, there's really no reason to hold on to the DOE title.

 

[Claire]

I saw on another forum that Charles has a committee that will be advising him on the transition to monarchy and that it was discussed there. They are concerned that Edward and his family and family after that will do stuff that will degrade the title and by association the memory of Prince Philip. It has been noted that Prince Andrew has disgraced the title of Duke of York and that they want to prevent this from happening. This will essentially allow them to retain the title for use in the royal family and it will not possible run away with Edward's future descendants. When I saw that I think that any new creation of royal dukes will only be for the person and will be a hereditary title. I get the feeling that they are kicking themselves to loosing Kent and Gloucester.
It should be noted that the Duke of Edinburgh never wanted the DOE awards to be named after him and the awards are aware that they need to remain themselves in the future to break themselves away from the personality in general. So there will be no problem with Edward's continued involvement with the Awards.

 

[BriarRose]

I don't doubt that you read that, but if Charles is really thinking this way, they should just end the monarchy. Because it shows a severe lack of understanding of, and appreciation for, the peerage.

Titles are supposed to be passed through generations. That is the 'goal' so to speak. For Charles or any other British royal to think that Dukedoms shouldn't be inheritable is absurd. They have been plenty of Kings who have sullied the reputation of the monarchy, but no one is suggesting Charles shouldn't get the title of King.

It sounds like, if the reports are true, the real issue is that Edward has a son who will inherit his father's titles.

I have always believed that royal watchers make too big a deal of Dukedoms leaving the mainline, as that is entirely the point of a peerage. But if Charles is also thinking this, then seriously, don't just stop at limiting the DOE title. End it all. Not titles, no monarchy. Because at its core, it's about passing privilege and titles through generations just based on the birth order of boys, and not on merit. And that has benefitted Charles far more than it has hurt him.

Though I maintain that the Queen shouldn't have publicly promised her youngest son a Dukedom that she couldn't bestow, I think it's equally bizarre for Charles to think that Dukedoms shouldn't be inheritable on the chance that a future holder will hurt the reputation of the title.

The current Dukes of Kent and Gloucester are a credit to an inheritable peerage, not a detraction to it.

 

[Claire]

What I was trying to say is that they only want royal Dukes to be the sons of the reigning monarchy. No more younger brother or cousins and second cousins Dukes.

Is it possible that the problem is that is it a Scottish title?

 

[ladongas]

Surely Charles wouldn’t want to begin his reign by...

...breaking two promises?

A. The Princess Consort promise

B. The Duke of Edinburgh promise

For various reasons, Charles is unlikely to be a very popular king (at least at first). And if he breaks two promises immediately after his ascension, he’ll be just like any bloke at the corner pub telling porkies to suit himself.

PS I don’t believe the story in the Times.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I moved my reply to this post to Questions about British Styles and Titles.

Two elements of the story strike me as out of the ordinary: that there is not the slightest hint regarding the motivation for the alleged change of plans, [...]

If true, the only potential reason which comes to my mind is a plan to sideline his siblings when he accedes to the throne.

Yes, I noticed there was no motivation given, that's why I wondered if it was an emotional reaction to his father's death. It does seem strange that there's no follow up just "nope".

Apologies, it wasn't my intent to dismiss your theory. I felt that given the ancient tradition of conferring dukedoms on royal princes and the publicly settled decision of 1999, there would need to be (not legally, but for the sake of optics) a rational reason for the decision even if emotional motivations are a factor.

I saw on another forum that Charles has a committee that will be advising him on the transition to monarchy and that it was discussed there. They are concerned that Edward and his family and family after that will do stuff that will degrade the title and by association the memory of Prince Philip. It has been noted that Prince Andrew has disgraced the title of Duke of York and that they want to prevent this from happening. This will essentially allow them to retain the title for use in the royal family and it will not possible run away with Edward's future descendants. When I saw that I think that any new creation of royal dukes will only be for the person and will be a hereditary title. I get the feeling that they are kicking themselves to loosing Kent and Gloucester.

Did the person on the forum give a source?

While I agree that persisting in making royal dukedoms hereditary has its pitfalls, these could be avoided by granting the dukedom of Edinburgh to the Earl of Wessex for his lifetime only.

I don't doubt that you read that, but if Charles is really thinking this way, they should just end the monarchy. Because it shows a severe lack of understanding of, and appreciation for, the peerage.

Titles are supposed to be passed through generations. That is the 'goal' so to speak. For Charles or any other British royal to think that Dukedoms shouldn't be inheritable is absurd. They have been plenty of Kings who have sullied the reputation of the monarchy, but no one is suggesting Charles shouldn't get the title of King.

It sounds like, if the reports are true, the real issue is that Edward has a son who will inherit his father's titles.

I have always believed that royal watchers make too big a deal of Dukedoms leaving the mainline, as that is entirely the point of a peerage. But if Charles is also thinking this, then seriously, don't just stop at limiting the DOE title. End it all. Not titles, no monarchy. Because at its core, it's about passing privilege and titles through generations just based on the birth order of boys, and not on merit. And that has benefitted Charles far more than it has hurt him.

I respectfully disagree. Outside of the royal family, new peerages have been conferred on a non-inheritable basis for decades, and these peerages continue to serve a purpose. Within the British royal family, I believe the goal of conferring peerages is simply to carry on a tradition. If the point were for the peerage to be passed on through as many generations as possible, they would not have been granted with a limitation to the legitimate male line.

 

[BriarRose]

But the limitation to the legitimate male line was because, before modern reason finally took over, illegitimate men and all women did not have the same legal rights and status as legitimate men. So it follows that the peerage was set up the same, as all men likely thought they would father sons no matter what. (and not on topic, but I'm all in favor of expanding the inheritable peerage to women, and with DNA testing today, there could be a valid argument to include illegitimate children as well.)

Don't forget, Charles only has a right to be King as the oldest legitimate male child of the Queen. He has not earned the role of King. He can't. It's not how a monarchy works.

If Charles believes that his nephew shouldn't inherit a title just because of his relationship to his father Edward, where does that leave Charles? Should we just .... elect our head of state, rather than risk it passing to someone who will harm the crown's reputation? Is that what Charles wants us to do?

If the report is true, I don't think Charles has really thought about what he is saying. That it's too dangerous to give privilege and title to people only because of their patrilineal descent from a monarch. I actually think Phillip would call him an idiot for that reason, and not because Phillip's wishes aren't being respected.

(Also, though it seems unlikely, the monarch could grant an inheritable peerage to a non-family member. The monarch is allowed to do so. Churchill was going to be given a Dukedom, but he turned it down so that his son could sit in the House of Commons.)

 

[Sionevar]

What I was trying to say is that they only want royal Dukes to be the sons of the reigning monarchy. No more younger brother or cousins and second cousins Dukes.

Is it possible that the problem is that is it a Scottish title?

I did wonder about this myself. If Scotland gains independence and severs ties with the monarchy - not 100% likely at the moment, but not unimaginable either - Edinburgh would then become an unusable 'foreign' dukedom, similar to Connaught.

 

[EllieCat]

If this is true, and Charles doesn't make Edward Duke of Edinburgh after he is King, that would make me really sad for Edward & Sophie. Apart from a bit of a rough start, the Wessexes settled down into complete (and mostly ignored by the press) support for Queen and country. They accepted Edward being made an Earl instead of a Duke on his wedding, then Sophie's position was pushed down from the third Lady in the land (behind the Queen and Queen Mother) when the Queen changed the rules and made it so that when Princess Anne was present, or Princess Alexandra, then Sophie became the lesser female Royal – no squeaks from the Wessexes regarding their position in the family. No scandals. No speaking to the press about anything other than their support for their patronages. And for all their hard work, especially for the Duke of Edinburgh scheme, I feel they well and truly deserve to take over the Dukedom, not at all forgetting it was Prince Philip's wish, and the Queen's too. However, I shall wait and see if this is true.

 

[muriel]

...breaking two promises?

A. The Princess Consort promise

B. The Duke of Edinburgh promise

For various reasons, Charles is unlikely to be a very popular king (at least at first). And if he breaks two promises immediately after his ascension, he’ll be just like any bloke at the corner pub telling porkies to suit himself.

PS I don’t believe the story in the Times.

THis is just speculation.

Anyways, not to be pedantic, but A was an intention, not a promise.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I don't doubt that you read that, but if Charles is really thinking this way, they should just end the monarchy. Because it shows a severe lack of understanding of, and appreciation for, the peerage.

Titles are supposed to be passed through generations. That is the 'goal' so to speak. For Charles or any other British royal to think that Dukedoms shouldn't be inheritable is absurd. They have been plenty of Kings who have sullied the reputation of the monarchy, but no one is suggesting Charles shouldn't get the title of King.

It sounds like, if the reports are true, the real issue is that Edward has a son who will inherit his father's titles.

[....]

In no any other monarchy these Dukedoms are hereditary. All of these titles are ad personam. This proves that not having hereditary dukedoms is not at all an end of a monarchy.

And there are monarchies which have scrapped these "territorial" titles because they are completely meaningless. The Duke of Cornwall and the Duke of Lancaster have a real Dukedom, a real territory and an enormous fortune.

But the Duke of York has zero comma zero to do with York. His territory once was Sunninghill Park. That is it. Princess Madeleine of Sweden has zero comma zero to do with Hälsingland and Gästrikland of which she is Duchess. She lives in the United States. Likewise the Duke of Sussex whom is living a jet set life in California. The good people of Sussex never see "their Duke" whose title will eventually pass to Archie, possibly growoing up all his life in the States...

That Prince Charles wants to clean up archaïc meaningless fodder to create a lean, transparent and modern monarchy working in an ever-changing society is something to applaud.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

In no any other monarchy these Dukedoms are hereditary. All of these titles are ad personam.

I am not sure if that is true for all of the monarchies worldwide, but as far as Europe goes, it is true only that the UK continues to grant hereditary territorial titles to younger sons (and only the UK continues to discriminate between sons and daughters in this regard).

But on the other hand, in every other monarchy in Europe with the exception of Spain, all males descending in legitimate male lines from monarchs are titled, even in lines which are excluded from the succession to the throne. In that sense, the UK monarchy is already leaner than the other monarchies of Europe but for Spain. The sons of Lord Nicholas Windsor are plain Master in spite of being males in legitimate patrilineal line from a King.

If Charles believes that his nephew shouldn't inherit a title just because of his relationship to his father Edward, where does that leave Charles? Should we just .... elect our head of state, rather than risk it passing to someone who will harm the crown's reputation? Is that what Charles wants us to do?

If the report is true, I don't think Charles has really thought about what he is saying. That it's too dangerous to give privilege and title to people only because of their patrilineal descent from a monarch. I actually think Phillip would call him an idiot for that reason, and not because Phillip's wishes aren't being respected.

Just for clarification, the report in The Times did not speculate on the Prince's thinking. That speculation originated from a post on another forum which was discussed here.

My understanding is that the speculation was not about the Prince of Wales being opposed to hereditary privilege, but about the goal of slimming the number of distant relatives who will bear "royal" titles in future generations. It is true that the King himself could very well harm the Crown's reputation, but the greater the number of individuals who are associated with the Crown, the greater the probability that at least one of them will do harm to the Crown's reputation.

They accepted Edward being made an Earl instead of a Duke on his wedding,

While the motivation for Edward being made an Earl instead of a Duke has not been officially confirmed, the press reports stated that it was Edward's personal request, as he became fond of the title Earl of Wessex after hearing it used in the film Shakespeare in Love.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uk...am-asks-the-Queen-not-to-make-him-a-duke.html

 

[Mbruno]

...breaking two promises?

A. The Princess Consort promise

B. The Duke of Edinburgh promise

Plus stripping Harry's children of the HRH. Charles would be definitely shooting himself in the foot in all 3 counts.

 

[Excalibur]

...

My understanding is that the speculation was not about the Prince of Wales being opposed to hereditary privilege, but about the goal of slimming the number of distant relatives who will bear "royal" titles in future generations. It is true that the King himself could very well harm the Crown's reputation, but the greater the number of individuals who are associated with the Crown, the greater the probability that at least one of them will do harm to the Crown's reputation.

...

Besides Prince Edward, the only future holder of the title (in that creation) that could be "royal" would be James, as any children of James would not have HRH. And since it is highly unlikely (according to Sophie) that James will ever use the HRH, I believe this is a moot point.

So after Edward, there really is no one that could possibly "sully" the royal title.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

...breaking two promises?

A. The Princess Consort promise

B. The Duke of Edinburgh promise

[....]

There are no such "promises".

A
It was an intention, an option, a suggestion, not a promise, to create the title Princess Consort for Camilla but this is impossible without a change of law. Charles is not in any position to change the law, to begin with: his very first moment as King simply sees his legally wedded wife as Queen.

B
It was an intention, an option, a suggestion that in due time Prince Edward once would become Duke of Edinburgh. But this is never a "promise" as Charles himself, heir of the body male - lawfully begotten to the very Duke of Edinburgh himself, was and is in no any position to do anything about this ducal title. And no any Sovereign lets him- or herself to be ruled "over the grave". The word says it: sovereign. It is the King, and the King only, who organizes his House to his own will and pleasure. It is possible the new King will make the Earl of Wessex and Forfar a Duke of Edinburgh indeed. And it is possible he does not. That is his prerogative to decide upon.

A and B were no "promises". And both are not "broken" as A and B are not even present time but something which might possibly happen in a future.

 

[Somebody]

While the motivation for Edward being made an Earl instead of a Duke has not been officially confirmed, the press reports stated that it was Edward's personal request, as he became fond of the title Earl of Wessex after hearing it used in the film Shakespeare in Love.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uk...am-asks-the-Queen-not-to-make-him-a-duke.html

Edward and Sophie recently spoke about it in a joined interview. I would consider that a confirmation. They were personally asked by the duke of Edinburgh in advance of their wedding if they were open to being made the Duke (and Duchess) of Edinburgh in due time, i.e., after the title had merged with the Crown. They agreed to that, which meant that Edward would receive a lesser title for the time being.

There are no such "promises".

A
It was an intention, an option, a suggestion, not a promise, to create the title Princess Consort for Camilla but this is impossible without a change of law. Charles is not in any position to change the law, to begin with: his very first moment as King simply sees his legally wedded wife as Queen.

B
It was an intention, an option, a suggestion that in due time Prince Edward once would become Duke of Edinburgh. But this is never a "promise" as Charles himself, heir of the body male - lawfully begotten to the very Duke of Edinburgh himself, was and is in no any position to do anything about this ducal title. And no any Sovereign lets him- or herself to be ruled "over the grave". The word says it: sovereign. It is the King, and the King only, who organizes his House to his own will and pleasure. It is possible the new King will make the Earl of Wessex and Forfar a Duke of Edinburgh indeed. And it is possible he does not. That is his prerogative to decide upon.

A and B were no "promises". And both are not "broken" as A and B are not even present time but something which might possibly happen in a future.

The word was 'agreed' - so, the relevant noun would be 'agreement' not 'option', 'intention' or 'suggestion'. An agreement should be kept. If Charles didn't want to follow through or be bound by the agreement in the future, he shouldn't have agreed to it and stated that he couldn't agree to it as he did not want to bind himself to anything that he might or might not do as a Sovereign. In that case Edward would have received a different dukedom instead of an earldom.

On their wedding day, Buckingham Palace announced in a statement: “The Queen, the Duke of Edinburgh and the Prince of Wales have also agreed that the Prince Edward should be given the Dukedom of Edinburgh in due course, when the present title held now by Prince Philip eventually reverts to the Crown.”