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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Cepe, Lumutqueen, vkrish, et al: what a lovely, civil, fascinating discussion. This is why I belong to the forums! Thank you all. :bow:
 
I am not asking whether a daughter can inherit.
If HRH Prince ABC, son of a monarch wants his kids to grow up simply as Mr X Mountbatten-Windsor, and no other title whatsoever, then at the time of creating him a peer, if the monarch simply omits the "heirs body male", then it is possible right?
That the peerage no longer exists after the said Prince dies, and title reverts to Crown instead of passing to his son..

Well according to the 1917 Letters Patent the children of the monarchs male line grandchildren are styled as the younger children of a duke. This is why Prince Michael's children are styled Lord and Lady even though he has no peerage.
In your scenario the monarchs son does have a peerage so then his children automatically get a courtesy title and are not plain Mr or Miss rather like the children of the Earl of Wessex.
 
Were/Are there any peerages created without the tag "heirs body male"?
If a son of monarch wants his kids to grow up as real-commoners (not half-way like Edward) no prefixes/no suffixes/styles/titles, just Mr X M-W then can/will the monarch create him a peer just for himself, so that after his death the title reverts to Crown, instead of passing on to his son.
Any precedence?
Or any chances of adopting this method in future as "modernisation"?

I think the answer to your question here lies in the life peers. The Queen has the ability to create life peers, and does so almost exclusively now (the only hereditary peers she makes are her family members). I'm not sure if it's actually law that all life peers are baron(esse)s or if it's just practice, but it is a precedent. I'm also not entirely sure if the children of a life peer are styled as the children of a baron or not.

There would be the problem in that creating a royal as a life peer would enable that royal to vote in the House of Lords. While he/she wouldn't actually do so, the fact that they would have the ability to might be a problem for some.

Well according to the 1917 Letters Patent the children of the monarchs male line grandchildren are styled as the younger children of a duke. This is why Prince Michael's children are styled Lord and Lady even though he has no peerage.
In your scenario the monarchs son does have a peerage so then his children automatically get a courtesy title and are not plain Mr or Miss rather like the children of the Earl of Wessex.

True, but if Edward wanted them to be Mr. or Miss Mountbatten-Windsor they would be known as such.
 
I think the answer to your question here lies in the life peers. The Queen has the ability to create life peers, and does so almost exclusively now (the only hereditary peers she makes are her family members). I'm not sure if it's actually law that all life peers are baron(esse)s or if it's just practice, but it is a precedent. I'm also not entirely sure if the children of a life peer are styled as the children of a baron or not.

There would be the problem in that creating a royal as a life peer would enable that royal to vote in the House of Lords. While he/she wouldn't actually do so, the fact that they would have the ability to might be a problem for some.



True, but if Edward wanted them to be Mr. or Miss Mountbatten-Windsor they would be known as such.

To answer your question, the children of Life Peers are styled as the children of Barons.
Anyone can chose to be known as Mr or Miss, but it still remains that as the children of a peer they also have courtesy styles and titles.
 
To answer your question, the children of Life Peers are styled as the children of Barons.
Anyone can chose to be known as Mr or Miss, but it still remains that as the children of a peer they also have courtesy styles and titles.

That's what I figured.
 
I am not asking whether a daughter can inherit.
If HRH Prince ABC, son of a monarch wants his kids to grow up simply as Mr X Mountbatten-Windsor, and no other title whatsoever, then at the time of creating him a peer, if the monarch simply omits the "heirs body male", then it is possible right?
That the peerage no longer exists after the said Prince dies, and title reverts to Crown instead of passing to his son..

There are life peerages issued twice a year in the honours lists - so the answer to your question is yes. Sorry I misunderstood earlier
 
Edward does A LOT for the DoE award, as does Sophie. It's on fitting that he become the next DoE when his father passes away so he can carry on the award. James will eventually become His Grace, Duke of Edinburgh and I am sure he will support the award, whether he does it or not.

Edward declined being made a Duke at his wedding because the discussion about him becoming DoE had obviously happened, thus he probably felt it wasn't right to be made a Duke twice.

He will not only have to wait until Philip passes but until The Queen passes as the title will become one of Charles' titles when Philip passes.

The stated intention is that when Charles is King and the title has merged with The Crown that it be recreated for Edward which means that theoretically we could have a period of a decade or so with The Duke of Edinburgh title not actually being used formally as Charles would be the holder but not using it as he would still use Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall and Duke of Rothesay as his primary titles.
 
Prince Frederick Louis, grandson of King George I of England, was styled Duke of Gloucester from 1718 to 1726. He was created Duke of Edinburgh in 1726. Was he ever created Duke of Gloucester? If Yes, when?
 
Nobility, Aristocracy and Titles

According to the Wikipedia page, while Frederick was styled Duke of Gloucester when he was younger, he was never actually created Duke of Gloucester. Frederick's third son, William Henry, would later be created Duke of Gloucester and Edinburgh, in what can be seen as a clear reference to his father.
 
This kind of topic confuses me to the point really being unable to pay much attention. The basic points are looking like firstly it is a title of nobility, second it has nothing to do with personal financial gain, third it is a matter of tradition, something about saying thanks in Russian I think it is spa-zi-boe, (?)(thank you) spa-cee-boe, (?)(thank you) spa-cee-bah, (?)(thank you) or bal-shoy spa-see-boe (?)(thank you very much), anyway as far as the titles used to address royalty they have historical importance and are proper as far as who is supposed to use them I am not sure exactly. Basically aren't they just Mr and or Ms or Mrs or suitable royal title like prince, princess even if they are also duke or dutchess. They don't loose the prince or princess status if they get a duke or dutchess title do they? I was confused about the change from duke to prince for example. Who is supposed to address them by that duke title?
 
Last edited:
I think the answer to your question here lies in the life peers. The Queen has the ability to create life peers, and does so almost exclusively now (the only hereditary peers she makes are her family members). I'm not sure if it's actually law that all life peers are baron(esse)s or if it's just practice, but it is a precedent. I'm also not entirely sure if the children of a life peer are styled as the children of a baron or not.

There would be the problem in that creating a royal as a life peer would enable that royal to vote in the House of Lords. While he/she wouldn't actually do so, the fact that they would have the ability to might be a problem for some.



True, but if Edward wanted them to be Mr. or Miss Mountbatten-Windsor they would be known as such.

Oh ok just a place to comment with reference to learn.. so it's more of a household title kind of a family name thing that relates to politics and family business? There are so many names, so many titles. So, lol, it's kind of just easier to refer to them as names without title when doing study on history until you get to the point where the title is part of the history your reading. So they get votes? What about just personal companions can't they just have personal companions or friends without title? I guess there is too much money and politics involved or something. I might be misunderstanding, but, it seems like anyone they do any interaction with has to have some kind of status and title, job or reason for the interaction, which makes sense, really it does for the positions they are in. I don't see the benefit of them having interactions with others who do not have some sort of royal job or duty or with some sort of title of nobility. Or am I way off in understanding? Really this is a family who has historically had the power to declare war, we are not talking some renaissance nuisance, wanna be king of the round table nonsense, but a full fledged royal family who given their nobility status can bring on a high scale war with certain given titles through hereditary. See, so all this to do with Prince Andrew in the media and court room speculation about paid for hire courtesans in the past doesn't make a lot of sense. So for study, is it duke, duchess, princess prince or hereditary name when researching the land held and history of the commonwealth, to aide in refrence?
 
Last edited:
This kind of topic confuses me to the point really being unable to pay much attention. The basic points are looking like firstly it is a title of nobility, second it has nothing to do with personal financial gain, third it is a matter of tradition, something about saying thanks in Russian I think it is spa-zi-boe, (?)(thank you) spa-cee-boe, (?)(thank you) spa-cee-bah, (?)(thank you) or bal-shoy spa-see-boe (?)(thank you very much), anyway as far as the titles used to address royalty they have historical importance and are proper as far as who is supposed to use them I am not sure exactly. Basically aren't they just Mr and or Ms or Mrs or suitable royal title like prince, princess even if they are also duke or dutchess. They don't loose the prince or princess status if they get a duke or dutchess title do they? I was confused about the change from duke to prince for example.

This answer is based primarily on things that I have learned here from those much wiser than I and from reading through the threads in their entirety.

Although for the most part duchies do not provide income these days there are two primary ones that do. The Duchy of Cornwall which provides an income for The Prince of Wales and the Duchy of Lancaster which provides income for The Queen. There are also different types of ducal titles. There are royal dukes and there are hereditary peer dukes. Except in rare cases, the ducal title and the estates (many times called a "pile") entailed with it still goes by the ages old first male of the body rule.

A royal duke can also be a prince. For example, when in Scotland, Prince Charles is referred to as The Duke of Rothesay.

One thing to remember. The HRH and styles of Prince and Princess denote members of the royal family. Hereditary peerages such as Duke, Earl etc are created by the sovereign at his/her pleasure. Honorific lifetime titles such as OBE (Order of the British Empire) and such are granted by the monarch for specific reasons. This is what you mostly see when you hear that The Queen or Prince William has done an investiture. Good examples are Sir Paul McCartney, Sir Elton John, Baroness Margaret Thatcher, Sir Patrick Stewart etc.

Its a very interesting topic and I can't begin to say I know all the ins and outs. I suggest reading through this thread in its entirety. There are also other threads dealing with similar topics.

Enjoy!
 
So life peers, or peerage is a part of Parliament. Their titles? The curly wigged white hair dudes can be woman through the peerage act. The house of lords is a hereditary thing that requires some kind of summons, doesn't always have to be peerage, requires a letters patent for peerage respectfully, kind of an Irish Scottish thing, all seems to have to do with shires or land, but there is some history in there about how Earls are an Anglo-Saxton thing, William the Conqueror, and Henry II didn't make dukes it was a Edward of England III thing, basically the titles are representations of land, Barons were ordered to attend Parliament, so Barons have had to do with Parliament in the past as representatives then led to house of commons, oh..k.. those titles, including marquees and viscounts all have to do with law and land. From what I read anyway. correct me if I am wrong. So referring to their titles is like referring to their position it's like a title that illustrates a job not like mr or mrs or ms unless it is in it's masculine or feminine form.
 
So if it's the Order of the British Empire it's a Dame or Sir/Knight. Five classes, GBE,KBE/DBE,CBE,OBE,MBE . The British Empire Medal is associated or affiliated but recipients are not members of the order. So I guess their titles are also referring to the business they conduct or the status of their (?) Ok, so, King George V founded OBE to fill gaps in the British Honor System and from what I have read usually those in the orders were military officials, diplomats, peers, officials, civil servants and then there was the association with the Indian Royals and British Raj. How did musicians somehow fit in that mix? They must have some sort of humanitarian affiliations or past enlistment history no one knows about.
 
How did musicians somehow fit in that mix? They must have some sort of humanitarian affiliations or past enlistment history no one knows about.

Basicially (and don't quote me on this), I believe its in recognition to contributions made in their respective fields. The arts, science, community service and the like. Its The Queen's way of saying thank you and acknowledging what they've accomplished.

The Honors thread here is a good place to read up on this subject. It has a massive wealth of information and has been ongoing here since 2005.

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/the-honours-thread-8379.html
 
Basicially (and don't quote me on this), I believe its in recognition to contributions made in their respective fields. The arts, science, community service and the like. Its The Queen's way of saying thank you and acknowledging what they've accomplished.

The Honors thread here is a good place to read up on this subject. It has a massive wealth of information and has been ongoing here since 2005.

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/the-honours-thread-8379.html

It isnt just about their achievements in their professional field. For example, Elton John received his knighthood for his work for charity, as did Sir Ian Botham (England cricketer who was knighted for his charity work, not for services to cricket). Dual reasons can be given (ie service to music and charitable causes)

The notice for honours is very specific. Always worth a read
 
I'm going to try to answer all your points, and I apologize if I repeat anything already said by Osipi or Cepe.



as far as the titles used to address royalty they have historical importance and are proper as far as who is supposed to use them I am not sure exactly. Basically aren't they just Mr and or Ms or Mrs or suitable royal title like prince, princess even if they are also duke or dutchess. They don't loose the prince or princess status if they get a duke or dutchess title do they? I was confused about the change from duke to prince for example. Who is supposed to address them by that duke title?

To start, "who is supposed to address them by that duke title" the answer is simple: everyone. If you have a title - Duke, Earl, etc - you are not a Mr. or Mrs., you are that title. It's comparable to being a Dr. or a Reverend in that regards.

A royal, a peer, and any person who holds a courtesy title is not just a Mr. or a Ms., etc, they are instead that title that they hold.

In modern Britain, the only way that a person loses a title they hold in their own right is if it is revoked via parliament or they become the monarch and it merges with the crown - they can chose to not acknowledge or use a title, but they can't cease to have it outside of these conditions. This doesn't apply to those who hold a title by courtesy; the eldest son of a Duke will use a courtesy title until becoming the Duke himself; a daughter will use a courtesy title but might take her husband's title upon marriage (if he has one); a wife is the Duchess during their marriage but ceases to be so if they get divorced and becomes the Dowager Duchess on her husband's death.

So, for example: Prince Charles was born Prince Charles of Edinburgh - holding the title Prince in his own right owing to the LPs issued by his grandfather during his mother's pregnancy, and "of Edinburgh" by courtesy owing to his father's title. When his mother became Queen he lost the "of Edinburgh" and became Duke of Cornwall in his own right. He continued to be a Prince, he was just also a Duke. Likewise, when he became Prince of Wales he continued to be Duke of Cornwall; he's just primarily known as Prince of Wales because that's the higher title. When he becomes King he'll cease to be a Prince, a Duke, or Prince of Wales.

Oh ok just a place to comment with reference to learn.. so it's more of a household title kind of a family name thing that relates to politics and family business? There are so many names, so many titles. So, lol, it's kind of just easier to refer to them as names without title when doing study on history until you get to the point where the title is part of the history your reading.

Typically in histories people get referred to by their titles, or an abbreviated version of their titles. The idea of a person being known by their given name and not their surname or title is a fairly modern concept. It's not something as simple as a household title or a family name - first of all, within Britain, it wasn't a "household" title, as only one person held the title, although others did derive their titles from it. It's not a family name in the pure sense either; while a person may use their territorial designation in place of a title, or their title may be derived from their surname, it is still something separate from the actual name.

The way a history works is that a person will typically be referred to by the name that they held at the time in reference - therefore, a biography of the Queen would refer to her as Princess Elizabeth of York from her birth until 1936, thereafter simply Princess Elizabeth until she became Queen, at which point a biography would refer to her as the Queen in addition to just Elizabeth.

So they get votes?
The House of Lords is composed of members of the Peerage; traditionally this was all members who held title of nobility (in their own right) in Britain or its predecessor states. Since 1999 it has only been composed of those individuals who have received a life peerage, and not those who have a hereditary peerage - therefore, only those members of the nobility who have received recognition for their accomplishments, and not those who are members on the merits of their ancestors. Members of the House of Lords are not allowed to vote in parliamentary elections, nor are they allowed to hold a seat in the House of Commons.

As for royals themselves; if they haven't been made a life peer then they are allowed to vote in parliamentary elections (except for the Queen), but do not exercise this right. Before the change to the House of Lords, royals who where members of the nobility (and had their own titles) were eligible to vote in the House of Lords, but did not exercise this right either.

Just a note, members of the nobility are the Dukes, Earls, Barons, etc. The hereditary peers are those whose titles can be inherited by their heirs, according to whatever rules were established when the title was created (typically only the male-line descendants of the first holder of the title can inherit, in order of seniority). The life peers are those whose titles cannot be inherited on their passing, the rules of their title does not allow for any inheritance. Life peers are a very modern thing, but now all new peerages that are created are life peers (and only with the title Baron, nothing higher), unless they're created for a member of the British Royal Family.

What about just personal companions can't they just have personal companions or friends without title? I guess there is too much money and politics involved or something. I might be misunderstanding, but, it seems like anyone they do any interaction with has to have some kind of status and title, job or reason for the interaction, which makes sense, really it does for the positions they are in. I don't see the benefit of them having interactions with others who do not have some sort of royal job or duty or with some sort of title of nobility.
The members of the BRF have many interactions with people who are not titled, and we see this in their friendships and companions. A perfect example is Kate, whose family had no aristocratic connections or titles prior to Kate's schooling, yet she married a future king. Camilla, Sarah, and Sophie are all also not from aristocratic families, although in the case of both Camilla and Sarah their families were ones who were well connected (both in friendship and family ways) well before their marriages.

A lot of this isn't because there's any benefit in a specific background for their friends/partners, but rather because most of their friends are people they went to school with and/or the children of their parents' friends. So, for example, one of George's godfathers is William van Custem, who is known to be a good friend of Prince William's. One of William van Custem's brothers, Hugh, is the father to Grace, who was a flower girl at Prince William's wedding and is one of Prince William's godchildren. How did the van Custem brothers meet William? Their father, Hugh, went to university with Charles, and another one of their brothers served as pageboy at Charles and Diana's wedding. This brother, Edward, married Tamara Grosvenor, whose mother, the Duchess of Westminster, is one of Prince William's godparents, and one of her sons, Hugh, is another of George's godparents.

An interconnectedness that is often seen continues here; Hugh van Custem had a brother, Geoffrey, who married Sally McCorquodale, whose brother, Neil, married Sarah Spencer, whose sister, Diana, was the late Princess of Wales.
 
See, so all this to do with Prince Andrew in the media and court room speculation about paid for hire courtesans in the past doesn't make a lot of sense.
Andrew's issues are a bit off topic for this thread, but the issue at hand there is that a man whom he is known to have been close friends with is a pedophile who recently was publicly accused of having utilized girls as sex slaves. Andrew's name (along with others) was brought into it when one of the girls named him as one of the people she had been forced to have sex with.

So for study, is it duke, duchess, princess prince or hereditary name when researching the land held and history of the commonwealth, to aide in refrence?
In terms of heirarchy... they're not entirely based on the same level.

In essence, first you have your monarch, then your royal family (the princes and princesses), then your nobility, which is broken into dukes, marques, earls, viscounts, barons, then baronets, in that order, then your untitled individuals. There is an order of precedent for the royalty and a separate order of precedent for the nobility (with the royals typically coming before the nobles). Within the nobility, however, there is a difference between the royal dukes - that is the Princes who are also Dukes - and the regular Dukes.

In trying to do research... it's rather best if you have an idea of who was holding what titles at a certain time. Take for example Prince George, Duke of Cambridge (1819-1904). After a certain time he's not going to be referred to as Prince George, but rather as the Duke of Cambridge. If you don't know when he became Duke then researching the Duke is likely to come up with confusion between him and his father, but searching just for Prince George is going to leave things out as well - do you mean George of Cambridge, George of Cumberland (later Hanover), or George of York (later George V), who were all alive at the same time.

So life peers, or peerage is a part of Parliament. Their titles? The curly wigged white hair dudes can be woman through the peerage act.

The House of Lords is a House of Parliament composed of peers - since 1999 life peers (those whose titles are not hereditary), prior to that all peers.

Women are able to be peers in their own right.

Their titles are typically "Baron" now. A peer is simply a member of the nobility, a member of the peerage - a Duke, Earl, Baron, etc, however the only title used in the system of granting life peerages is Baron.

The house of lords is a hereditary thing that requires some kind of summons, doesn't always have to be peerage, requires a letters patent for peerage respectfully
Being a member of the House of Lords does require having a peerage, hence the name "Lords" - it referred to the fact that those who sat in it were Lords, or peers. Its opposite is the House of Commons, which is made up of those elected by the "commons" or the commonfolk who weren't peers.

but there is some history in there about how Earls are an Anglo-Saxton thing, William the Conqueror, and Henry II didn't make dukes it was a Edward of England III thing, basically the titles are representations of land, Barons were ordered to attend Parliament, so Barons have had to do with Parliament in the past as representatives then led to house of commons, oh..k.. those titles, including marquees and viscounts all have to do with law and land.
It's a bit more complicated than that.

The Earls, in England (in Scotland they were Thanes), from the Scandinavian "jarl" referred initially to a chieftain who ruled a territory in the king's stead. Essentially they were the governors of an area for the king - the equivalent to the continent's Dukes, but with less power (Dukes were de facto rulers; Earls were ruling under the control of the king). William I continued the system of Earls under a modified manner while also introducing the Barons, altering the feudal system, however with time the Earls became something that in rank may have been higher than the Barons but in actual terms of wealth or power was not necessarily greater.

The title Duke comes from Roman political divisions, which were abandoned under the Anglo-Saxons. The system continued on the Continent, and William the Conqueror was also Duke of Normandy. Edward III revived this for people who were family - three of the first four dukes were his sons, the fourth being a cousin (I can't remember how removed) with whom Edward is believed to have been on good terms with (and who had no sons, so the title wasn't going to be passed on).

The marquess title doesn't have a great history in Britain. Richard II created the first two Marquesses, only to revoke them both (the first one so that he could create it's bearer, Robert de Vere, Duke of Ireland). Henry VI was the next to create a marquess, but even then it wasn't a hugely popular title - Lord Melbourne once told Queen Victoria that "people were mere made Marquises, when it was not wished that they should be made Dukes."

Henry VI also created the first viscounts, although initially they weren't hereditary titles. Like Marquess, they weren't used a lot on the grounds that they weren't very English.

Baronet is a title that while hereditary is not actually a peerage, and rank above the knighthoods. While originally used as early as the 14th century, it really gained prominence during the reign of James I who sold the titles.

From what I read anyway. correct me if I am wrong. So referring to their titles is like referring to their position it's like a title that illustrates a job not like mr or mrs or ms unless it is in it's masculine or feminine form.[/QUOTE]

So if it's the Order of the British Empire it's a Dame or Sir/Knight. Five classes, GBE,KBE/DBE,CBE,OBE,MBE . The British Empire Medal is associated or affiliated but recipients are not members of the order. So I guess their titles are also referring to the business they conduct or the status of their (?) Ok, so, King George V founded OBE to fill gaps in the British Honor System and from what I have read usually those in the orders were military officials, diplomats, peers, officials, civil servants and then there was the association with the Indian Royals and British Raj. How did musicians somehow fit in that mix? They must have some sort of humanitarian affiliations or past enlistment history no one knows about.

As for the Order of the British Empire, it's one of the orders within Great Britain.

There is the Order of the Garter, the Order of the Thistle, the Order of the Bath, the Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, the Distinguished Service Order, the Royal Victorian Order, the Order of Merit, the Imperial Service Order, the Order of the British Empire, and the Order of the Companions of Honour.

The Garter creates knights (KG) and Ladys (LG), as does the Thistle (KT and LT). The Bath creates Knights/Dames of the Grand Cross (GCB), Knight/Dame Commanders (KCB/DCB), and Companions (CB). Saint Michael and Saint George is similar (GCMG, KCMG/DCMG, CMG). The Distinguished Service just has Companions (DSO). The Royal Victorian has the Knight/Dames (GCVO, KCVO/DCVO), Commanders (CVO), Lieutenants (LVO), and Members(MVO). The Merit just has Members (OM), the Imperial Service has no rankings (ISO). The British Empire has the Knights/Dames (GBE, KBE/DBE), Commanders (CBE), Officers (OBE), and Members (MBE). The Companions of Honour just have Companions (CH).

Each one of these orders has its own requirements, varying from service to the crown, military service, civil service, or achievements in science, art, literature, culture, etc. The Order of the British Empire was designed to be a catch all with anyone being eligible for it if they had accomplished anything great.
 
Thank you for your exceptionally well written and detailed post Ish.

There were just a couple of things I thought of and, not being even remotely an expert in this area, I welcome correction.

I thought it was possible for a hereditary Peer to renounce his title. This happened when Viscount Stansgate renounced his peerage to become Tony Benn so that he could continue to sit in the commons.

Secondly, There are a small number of hereditary peers still sitting in the upper house (according to Parliament's website 88). I recall the idea was that the hereditary peers who were having their right to sit in the house removed were allowed to vote for some of their number who would continue to be members of the house. Since the Constitutional Reform Act, there have been rumblings that the Government should do away with this anomaly and remove the right of all hereditary peers to sit but it clearly hasn't happened yet.
 
Sometime in the next 20 years two new non royal dukedoms will enter the British Peerage, the first since the Duke if Fife was created, that of the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent. In both cases they will be the 3rd of their creation but the first holders who are not Princes. There are also two other potential peerages, that of the Earl of Wessex (and any other title he may be given) through his son, Lord James and any line of Prince Harrys. Is this going to be the only way that HERIDITARY titles will enter the peerage from now on, through cadet branches of the British Royal family?
 
I thought it was possible for a hereditary Peer to renounce his title. This happened when Viscount Stansgate renounced his peerage to become Tony Benn so that he could continue to sit in the commons.

Tony Benn disclaimed his peerage for his lifetime in order to allow him to maintain his seat in the commons. It's an interesting case; he was an MP before his father's death and was denied his seat when he became Viscount Stansgate. Despite not being able to sit in the house, he still ran for and won a seat in the next election and campaigned for change - which ended up being supported by the Conservative Government who had several members facing the same issue. After the passage of the Peerage Act 1963 a peer could disclaim his/her title for their lifetime, thus being eligible to sit in the commons.

That said, the title didn't cease to exist. Tony Benn did not use his title and wasn't held back by it, but when he died his title was still passed on to his son.

Secondly, There are a small number of hereditary peers still sitting in the upper house (according to Parliament's website 88). I recall the idea was that the hereditary peers who were having their right to sit in the house removed were allowed to vote for some of their number who would continue to be members of the house. Since the Constitutional Reform Act, there have been rumblings that the Government should do away with this anomaly and remove the right of all hereditary peers to sit but it clearly hasn't happened yet.


You are completely right here. I over simplified things a bit in regards to the House of Lords.

Some 90 or so Hereditary Peers do sit in the House. In addition, there are also 26 Lords Spiritual sitting in the House who are members of the clergy.
 
Is this going to be the only way that HERIDITARY titles will enter the peerage from now on, through cadet branches of the British Royal family?

Yes, I think so. With three exceptions in the early 80s, no hereditary peerages have been created for non-royals since 1964.
 
Tony Benn disclaimed his peerage for his lifetime in order to allow him to maintain his seat in the commons. It's an interesting case; he was an MP before his father's death and was denied his seat when he became Viscount Stansgate. Despite not being able to sit in the house, he still ran for and won a seat in the next election and campaigned for change - which ended up being supported by the Conservative Government who had several members facing the same issue. After the passage of the Peerage Act 1963 a peer could disclaim his/her title for their lifetime, thus being eligible to sit in the commons.

That said, the title didn't cease to exist. Tony Benn did not use his title and wasn't held back by it, but when he died his title was still passed on to his son.

Thank you for the explanation Ish. :flowers:
 
In that case the agreement worked out between the Queen, Prince Philip and their son would be worth nothing. Experts would no doubt have been consulted at the time of Edward's marriage and every possible scenario and permutation would have been looked at then. I have no doubt that Charles knows the wishes of his parents in the matter of his brother's peerage as do his own sons.
 
Only parliament can alter the Letters Patent once a title has been created. Not even the Queen can do it. So however unlikely there is a scenario where Harry will inherit the dukedom of Edinburgh and no one can do anything about it other than an Act of Parliament.

But given what will have to happen the dukedom will merge with the crown and Edward can receive a new creation.
 
After the death of the Queen and Prince Philip however, the title merges with the Crown, especially if Charlotte would ascend the throne as a young single woman. Harry would undoubtedly have a dukedom of his own by then and would likely be regent until Charlotte was 18.

Therefore if there is a new creation then the title could be given to Edward by the new monarch as per the family agreement. I don't believe that whoever is on the throne in this hypothetical scenario, that Edward would be subjected by the sovereign to being leapfrogged over. He obviously accepted the terms of the agreement at the time the Earldom of Wessex was created.


It's not a case of Edward being leapfrogged over.

The line of succession to the peerage is:
1. Charles
2. William
3. George
4. Harry
5. Andrew
6. Edward
7. James

However, this isn't the same as the line of succession to the throne - Charlotte, Beatrice, and Eugenie are all in the succession to the throne, but not the peerage, before Edward.

In order for Edward to inherit his father's title, everyone in the succession before him has to die without having become the monarch. In order for it to become available to be recreated then it either has to become extinct - meaning there are no living legitimate, male male-line descendants of Prince Philip - or it has to merge with the crown - the person who holds the title becomes monarch, or the monarch inherits the title.

While it's unlikely that the title won't merge with the crown - the direct line of succession to the throne is all male - it's still possible and if that happens there's nothing the Queen, the DoE, or their successors can do about it. If Harry were to become the Duke of Edinburgh the only way he could make it so that his uncle (or his uncle's heirs) would one day hold the title is to either become the monarch or not have legitimate sons himself.
 
To cause this amount of possible complication there must have been some compelling reason for the Queen and Duke to wish Edward to get the title used by his father for so many decades.

When it merges with the Crown as it probably will when Charles ascends the throne it would be an unjustice for Charles to go against his parents' wishes in this matter.

The Queen would probably have done better to have bitten the bullet (in spite of the prevailing public atmosphere at the time of the Wessex wedding) and given Edward Cambridge or Sussex and have done with it. As it is he's had to wait for sixteen years already.
 
I don't think there's any reason to expect Charles to not create his brother DoE when the time comes - unless it ends up being a purely political thing, where creating the title would cause upset with the public.

As for why the Queen and DoE would have made this decision (along with Edward and Sophie), I actually think it is typical of them. We all know that his position, and his wife's position, has been something that the DoE has struggled with at times; he is an old fashioned man who has been unable to pass his names on to his children - something which has been noticed as an issue for him in the past.

Charles will never be his father's heir, not truly. Even if he were to hold his father's titles, Charles will always be his mother's heir, and known by those titles.

Andrew got the traditional title of the second son of the monarch, and I don't think it would have been in his personality to accept a lesser title (Earl) and wait for an indefinite period of time before being "upgraded" - the idea of it doesn't mesh with what we know of Andrew's personality.

Edward, though, came into the stage much later than his siblings in many ways; he married well after his siblings (all 3 of his elder siblings' first marriages had ended before Edward married), and he didn't become a full time royal until after that. In general he seems to be content to draw less attention to himself than his siblings.

Another big thing here is that because Edward waited so long to become a full time royal it gave him an opportunity to step into his father's shoes that his siblings didn't have; it wouldn't have made sense if Andrew had taken a lesser title and begun to slowly follow his father's footsteps and begin preparing to take on the Duke of Edinburgh Award and associated charities in the late 80s/early 90s. It makes sense, however, for Edward, to do a decade later.
 
Just a note - Andrew didn't leave the Navy until 2001 - after Edward and Sophie married. As such he didn't become a full-time royal until 2001.


Andrew has taken over Philip's role with Outward Bound just as Edward has taken on the Duke of Edinburgh Awards' Scheme.
 
To cause this amount of possible complication there must have been some compelling reason for the Queen and Duke to wish Edward to get the title used by his father for so many decades.



When it merges with the Crown as it probably will when Charles ascends the throne it would be an unjustice for Charles to go against his parents' wishes in this matter.



The Queen would probably have done better to have bitten the bullet (in spite of the prevailing public atmosphere at the time of the Wessex wedding) and given Edward Cambridge or Sussex and have done with it. As it is he's had to wait for sixteen years already.


It is not very complicated. In almost every scenario, the title merges with the crown and then it can be recreated. The one scenario when it's not merge, would require Charles in his 60s, a 33 yr old William and a 2 yr old George to die before the 89 and 94 years old Queen and Philip. This is highly unlikely to happen.




Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom