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

[HM Queen Catherine]

Actually, you are wrong...

You are quite correct regarding the Peerage Act of 1963. In that case, should Prince Charles inherit the Dukedom of Edinburgh, he may disclaim it, which would suspend the title, although I don't know whether he would be able to re-grant it once he is King. I suppose legally it would revert to the Crown once he ascends the throne, but whether that would change the status of a suspended title is uncertain.

However, I must disagree with you regarding the amendment of the letters patent. The Dukedom of Edinburgh itself may only be inherited according to the remainder defined in the Letters Patent of creation, unless modified by an Act of Parliament. And this has been done before.

George V had his Letters Patent amended to include the style and title of HRH for the children of Elizabeth and Philip. His original Letters Patent, dated 30 November 1917, did not include this provision, and were amended in October 1948.

The letter of George V regarding this states "... We deem it expedient that the aforesaid Letters Patent should be amended and extended in manner hereinafter declared..."

and the letter from Whitehall dated 18 October states "It will be observed that the Letters Patent will in effect constitute an amendment and extension of the Letters Patent of the 30th November, 1917, of which a copy was enclosed with Dadd's letter of the 12th Oct."

The style of HRH is nothing more than a title, as is the Dukedom of Edinburgh, even though the former is not hereditary and the latter is.

Sorry about the 'Duchy' error. Of course I meant Dukedom, but sometimes my mind races faster than my fingers. LOL. You were right to point out that error.

 

[wbenson]

1) I don't think that anyone can legally renounce the right to succeed to a title. The Peerage Act 1963 only enabled peers to disclaim their titles, but that person's heir could not hold the disclaimed title until the death of the person who disclaimed it. In other words, only Philip can disclaim the title of Duke of Edinburgh, but Charles would still succeed to the title after Philip's death.

Philip can't disclaim his peerage. That had to be done within a year after the act became law.

 

[Iluvbertie]

George VI, in 1948, added to the LPs issued by his father in 1917, more than actually change them from the existing line of inheritance. What you are suggesting is actually passing over the first four in line of inheritance to that title.

As there is a way that Harry could inherit the title directly it wouldn't be possible to really change the LPs to pass them to a younger son over the second son of the current heir.

If William has a daughter and no son, then dies before The Queen, Philip and Charles (highly unlikely I know but still possible) then the crown would pass to that daughter but Edinburgh to Harry directly.

If a change was made to exclude Charles', William's, Harry's and Andrew's claim to the Edinburgh title it would really open a can of worms for titles.

The easiest way of dealing with the matter is the way proposed. Wait until it merges with the crown (assuming it does) and then recreate it for Edward.

 

[branchg]

I wonder if he'd be created Earl of Something like Edward, in the expectation that eventually he'll take the Duke of York title probably during William's reign. On the other hand, it probably makes more sense for that title to wait for William's second son. At least that means it'll be longer before the York title leaves the royal family. I think it's a shame that the Gloucester title, with all its royal history, will no longer be royal when the present Duke dies.

If William or Harry marry while The Queen still reigns, she may choose to create them Earls, rather than Dukes. Given that her youngest son was created Earl of Wessex, with the understanding Charles would create him Duke of Edinburgh in due course, the same reasoning could be applied to William or Harry, even though they are much closer to the throne than Edward.

Once Charles is King, William will automatically become The Duke of Cornwall and Harry could be granted a dukedom once he is a son of The Sovereign. Their sons could then use the earldoms as courtesy styles, possibly in place of being known as HRH Prince X, similar to James, Viscount Severn.

The Dukedom of Gloucester will no longer be of royal rank after the death of HRH Prince Richard, but it will remain a royal dukedom in the sense it is only created for the blood royal.

 

[Lady Marmalade]

Well, in William and Harry's case..we can only speculate. What I think will happen is this: Charles becomes king...the title merges back into the Crown, and then he re-creates it for Edward...plain and simple. Assuming everyone lives in line to it...and Charles is king and both Philip has obviously passed away.

I have enjoyed reading all your posts, as it helps me to understand this. But..it is still speculative at this point...and it is fun to try and guess.

I sometimes really wonder if the Queen reads things like this and says to herself... "Hahahahaha, they really have no idea just how many jewels I really have, or what will happen to William and Harry' titles when they marry!" LOL!!!!!!!

 

[king of scotland]

I will make a prediction and predict, that if The Queen is still alive when Princes Willaim and Harry marry, Prince William will be granted the Dukedoms of either Clarence or Cambridge. And I think Prince Harry will be given the Dukedom of Sussex.

When Harry has children will his children be titled Prince/Princess? Or would it take a letters of patent from the Queen, or if she is deceased, letters from Charles?

 

[MAfan]

If the Queen would still be alive, Henry's children would not be Princes, because they would be great-grandchildren of the Queen; but if (or when) Charles would become King Henry's children would be Princes, as granchildren of the King.

 

[king of scotland]

If the Queen issued Letters of Patent they could be titled Princes/Princesses?

I read somewhere that if the Queen is still alive, and Prince Harry has children she would created Letters to entitle them to these titles, if Harry wanted to.

 

[Iluvbertie]

If the Queen issued Letters of Patent they could be titled Princes/Princesses?

I read somewhere that if the Queen is still alive, and Prince Harry has children she would created Letters to entitle them to these titles, if Harry wanted to.

The Queen could issue amendments to the LPs of 1917, in the same way that her father did in 1948 so that her children were born HRH.

Whether she would do so is another matter. As she has allowed the children of one of her own children to not use the HRH she may feel that it would not be appropriate to issue new LPs granting the use of HRH for her great-grandchildren but let history take its natural course.

Harry's children will only become HRH if Charles becomes king. If Charles predeceases the Queen then Harry's children won't qualify for the HRH and she may prefer that as a means of reducing the number of HRHs and therefore the number of 'royal' members of the family.

 

[RoyalistRiley]

I've remembered that the royal Dukedom of Sussex is not held by anyone at present, too.

The Dukedom of Sussex is indeed not held by anyone, along with the Dukedoms of Clarence, Cambridge and Cumberland. I am guessing that they will be revived for Harry when Charles becomes King and for him and William's children

 

[branchg]

The Dukedom of Sussex is indeed not held by anyone, along with the Dukedoms of Clarence, Cambridge and Cumberland. I am guessing that they will be revived for Harry when Charles becomes King and for him and William's children

Cumberland is still technically extant, but suspended, under the Titles Deprivation Act of 1917, which allows for a petition to the Crown for restoration of the peerage to Prince Ernst-August of Hanover, the current Head of the Royal House of Hanover. The Hanovers never have done so, but they retain their legal right to exercise that option.

Clarence is unlikely to be revived since it is associated with rather bad luck, given the premature death of Prince Eddy from influenza. Sussex or Cambridge are possibilities for the future.

 

[jonnydep]

the Albany line has died out.

to my understanding, the dukedom of albany has not reverted back to the crown, as the male line has not died out, thus the currant heir is non other than prince hubertus of saxe-coburg- gotha (born 1961), in whom is vested the right to claim the dukedom / has the right of petition to the title (but as yet he has not done so).

i feel that you may be confused by the fact that his grandfather johann leopold had lost his rights to the dukedom of saxe-coburg-gotha, via his morganatic marriage (s). this does not affect the british titles & peerages only the german, as there is no such thing as a morganatic marriage in britain.

yes prince hubertus has much as a right than his hanoverian counterpart, prince ernst august (born 1954) to claim the titles lost in 1919.

i hope this clears up the question for you.........

 

[branchg]

Hubertus would indeed be the current holder of the Dukedom of Albany, but does not hold royal rank and style as a Prince of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, due to his grandfather's and father's morganatic marriages. This has so impact on his rights to a British peerage and Albany remains extant, but suspended, under the Titles Deprivation Act.

He does retain the right to repetition the Crown for restoration of his British peerage and has male issue.

 

[Marsel]

As I understand (and as branchg confirmed) under the titles Deprivation Act of 1917, the male heirs of Prince Charles Edward, 2nd Duke of Albany, have the right to petition the British Crown for the restoration of his peerages, although none have tried to date.

But assuming Hubertus Prinz von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha or his son, Sebastian Hubertus Prinz von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha will decide one day to petition for the restoration of their peerages, what would be required for that and who will make the decision (the Queen or the Government)?


Of course, I doubt that any claimant to the Duchy of Albany will actually ever try to appeal; the British newspapers would have a field day reciting the involvement of their ancestor, Prince Charles, 2nd Duke of Albany, in both World War 1 and World War 2, especially his involvement with Hitler's 'undesirables' programme (which he simply couldn't be unaware of, as he was the head of the German Red Cross).

 

[jonnydep]

a little puzzled

Hubertus does not hold royal rank and style as a Prince of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, due to his grandfather's and father's morganatic marriages.

and so we now back to the old annoying question of ranks, styles and titles (why does it, when it comes to the royals , things get so confusing). i have seen varoius genealogies, books etc, which state that hubertus is a prince (prinz von) of saxe- coburg- gotha as was his father ernest leopold (1935-1996)

however i have noticed a slight differance concerning his cousins who retain their rights to the duchy of saxe-coburg- gotha, the word prince comes before that of their christian names. does this differance matter ?

it would now appear perhaps that i should have written hubertus, prince of and not prince hubertus of ....... please excuse my gaffe, sorry for the confusion, as i did not know.........

 

[MAfan]

I guess he is styled "Hubertus Prinz von Saxe-Coburg-Gotha" and not "Prinz Hubertus von Saxe-Coburg-Gotha" since in Germany "Prinz von Saxe-Coburg-Gotha" is legally used as surname.

 

[jonnydep]

thank you mafan.
i think you may be correct there, why did i not think of that !!. i have still got a lot of learning and understanding to do in regards german surnames and titles ......

ps, isn't prince in german "prinz" and von means "of or from" thus prince of / from saxe...... very confusing indeed !!!

 

[branchg]

But assuming Hubertus Prinz von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha or his son, Sebastian Hubertus Prinz von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha will decide one day to petition for the restoration of their peerages, what would be required for that and who will make the decision (the Queen or the Government)

The Government would make the decision and advise the Crown, along with the Privy Council. Since any restoration would be a purely political decision, The Queen would have to be neutral and accept the advise of her ministers in the matter.

There is no possibility of either the Hanovers or the Coburgs ever exercising their right to petition. Neither family lives in Britain and it is highly unlikely they would want to go through the publicity.

 

[Marsel]

The Government would make the decision and advise the Crown, along with the Privy Council. Since any restoration would be a purely political decision, The Queen would have to be neutral and accept the advise of her ministers in the matter.

There is no possibility of either the Hanovers or the Coburgs ever exercising their right to petition. Neither family lives in Britain and it is highly unlikely they would want to go through the publicity.

Thank you!
I doubt they would ever want to go through the procedure either; there would be too much negative press and I sincerely doubt the Queen would be inclined to approve their petition in any case.

 

[jonnydep]

the royal dukedoms- gloucester & kent

we all know at the dukes of the blood royal takes precedence before that of the dukes in the peerages of england, scotland, great britain, ireland and the united kingdom.

england 10 dukes - norfolk (1483) down to rutland (1703)
scotland 8 dukes - hamilton (1643) down to roxburgh (1707)
great britain 3 dukes - brandon (1711) down to northumberland (1766)
ireland 2 dukes - leinster (1766), abercorn (1868)
united kingdom 6 dukes - wellington (1814) down to fife (1900)
this list is helpful as it shows the exact order of precedence of the dukes, for example the english dukes go before that of scotland (and so on), thus the duke of rutland goes before that of hamilton, whose title is much older !! also the duke of abercorn whose family has not achieved greatness goes before that of wellington, whose ancestor the first duke was the saviour of his country and those title is some fifty years older.

well what this is leading up to is this -

when the present dukes of gloucester and kent dies, these dukedoms will become non royal. thus their place in precedence will drop immensley.

i think they will rank after that of fife, assumimg that the dukedom of gloucester (created 1928) and that of kent (created 1934) were both created in peerage of the united kingdom. however if both dukedoms was created in the peerage of great britain they would rank below that of northumberland and adove that of leinster, abercorn and wellington.........etc

any ideas fellow members ?

 

[MAfan]

I had neve tought to this aspect...I think you're right, as non royal Dukedoms they will drop in the end of the list, since they are the last created.
I guess these two dukedoms are in the Peerage of the United Kingdom, so they will be the last dukedoms of all.
Btw, also today the Earl of Ulster and the Earl of St. Andrews are the last in the order of Precedence in the UK, so nothing will change for them...

 

[Marsel]

jonnydep, You are absolutely correct in your assumption: once the present Duke of Kent and Gloucester pass away, both Dukedoms will rank at the very bottom of the precedence list (unless Letters Patent are issued, which is highly unlikely).
As peerages of the United Kingdom, they come last in the precedence of countries, after England, Scotland, Great Britain and Ireland (as you have noted in your post). As the latest-created non-Royal Dukedoms (from the moment of death of the present holders), both Duke of Gloucester and Duke of Kent will rank below Duke of Fife in the list of precedence.

I've never thought of this issue as well, so thanks for reminding of the interesting and tangled word of precedence!

 

[Vecchiolarry]

Hi,

When would this assembly of dukes ever come together at one time to even worry about precedence??
A Coronation? A Royal Funeral? The Opening of Parliament?

Are all the dukes required to be present for any or all of these events?

Larry

 

[Iluvbertie]

Most of them no longer have seats in the Parliament (following the reforms of 1999) so Parliament is out but certainly at a Coronation when they, at least through a representative, swears allegiance directly to the monarch. Up to 1902 they all individually swore allegiance at the coronation but that was changed in 1902 due to Edward VII's recent appendectomy. It was felt that the ceremony would have been too long and taxing if all the nobles had to individually swear so now only the most senior (I believe) in each order of noblity actually does the swearing on behalf of all (this is after royal dukes etc who still do so individuall e.g. Duke of Edinburgh at Elizabeth II's).

 

[jonnydep]

was the dukedom of fife considered royal ?

back in 1889, the elder daughter of the prince of wales, louise had married the 6th earl of fife, whom was later created duke of fife in 1900. the couple had two children - lady alexandra and lady maud. however both was declared by king edward VII as princesses in 1905 ( the same year inwhich louise, the duchess of fife had become the princess royal).
her husband the duke of fife died in 1912, thereby the elder daughter princess alexandra became the duchess of fife in her own right. she died in 1959 to be succeeded by her nephew.

well i am wondering that if the dukedom of fife was considered to be a royal dukedom between the years 1912-1959, due to the fact that holder was a princess !!. it was not between 1900-1912 and not since 1959.

cheers

 

[MAfan]

This i an interesting question; although it was held by HRH the Princess Alexandra of Connaught, the Dukedom of Fife has never been considered as a Royal Dukedom.

 

[branchg]

It's not a dukedom of the blood royal in the sense Victoria elevated an extant Earl to the rank of Duke upon marriage to her granddaughter, HRH Princess Louise. When it was clear they would not have a son, Victoria then re-created it in the Peerage of the UK with a remainder to the female line.

Royal dukedoms are only inherited by male heirs of the body and cannot pass outside the original line to a brother. Once re-merged with the Crown, they are only created again for another member of the royal family. Fife passed from Alexandra to her nephew, Lord Carnegie, upon her death, which will not occur with a royal dukedom like York or Edinburgh.

However, The Queen could choose to re-create the York dukedom in the Peerage of the UK with a remainder to her granddaughters, Eugenie and Beatrice, if she wanted to.

 

[jonnydep]

thanks mafan

on second thoughts given that both the princesses was given precedence immediately after members of the royal family with the qualification of royal highness as declared in 1905 , perhaps there was not the need to regard the dukedom as royal.

another interesting note - at the same time when the king declared his granddaugthers princesses in 1905, he also stated they should have the qualification of highness !!. certainly the younger sister maud was referred as her highness and not her royal highness , the elder sister the duchess was a royal highness via her marriage to her cousin prince arthur anyway.

this seems somewhat strange how can the princesses be a highness and a royal highness at the same time (except by marriage). it must have been confusing for the court, as on the grand state occasions the princesses was royal highnesses, but on every day terms just highnesses.

very strange....... wouldnt it have been far easlier for all concerned for the king to declare them only as royal highnesses and be done with it. i do get the impression that royalty does make life more difficult for themselves and others at times !!!

so why did the king do this, any ideas out there ?

 

[MAfan]

As far as I know, only the children and grandchildren in male line of a Sovereign were (and still are) Royal Highnesses; the descendants of a grandchild of the Sovereign in male line, so who were Princes, were "only" Highnesses.
An example is King Edward VIII or his brother King George VI: they were born great-grandchildren of the reigning Queen, and at the time of their birth they were only Highnesses; later, in 1898, they were elevated to Royal Highnesses.

When Alexandra and Maud were created Princesses, they were not entitled to be Royal Highnesses, because they were not descendants in the male line from King Edward VII, who was their grandfather. So they were created Princesses and "only" Highnesses; later, when Alexandra married Prince Arthur, who was a Royal Highness because he was a grandson of Queen Victoria, she took the style of her husband, and became a Royal Highness too. Maud remained a Highness.

 

[jonnydep]

thankyou mafan, yes i do understand every thing what you have mentioned in your last reply. i feel you have slightly missed the point i was trying to make.

king edward VII declared that his granddaughters

"should bear the title of princess with the qualification of highness and precedence immediately after the members of the royal family with the qualication of royal highness "

surely the princesses can not be both "highness and royal highness" its not logical.......

any ideas mafan, why this is so ?