Edinburgh and Wessex Titles


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Was just a thought regarding Sophie given her high profile!
The king has often spoke of modernizing the monarchy and all of the above are Princesses by marriage but all but one's husbands happens to have a peerage.

I can't see him making Sophie or anyone else a princess in her own right. Even his own wife is not a princess in her own right and her title of Queen is by courtesy.
 
I can't see him making Sophie or anyone else a princess in her own right. Even his own wife is not a princess in her own right and her title of Queen is by courtesy.

of course not. Charles' becoming king seems to have set off a desire for loads of titles to be given out, when the country does not want them and neither does Charles.
 
That is true, theoretically the late Queen could have outlived Charles and then we would have seen a HRH Prince William as the 3rd Duke of Edinburgh, 1st Duke of Cambridge, 3rd Earl of Merioneth, 1st Earl of Strathearn, 3rd Baron Greenwich, 1st Baron Carrickfergus as Heir to his grandmother The Queen.

Then it was not a King Charles III but a King William V to decide on an eventual Dukedom of Edinburgh for his uncle, Prince Edward. Any talk of "he MUST do this or that" is empty as life sometimes does not follow an expected path.

Immediately after the death of Prince Philip, Prince Charles became the Duke of Edinburgh as the eldest son of Prince Philip. So even if the Queen had outlived Charles, Prince William would have already inherited the Dukedom of Edinburgh following Charles.
I think Charles was the fifth Duke of Edinburgh before becoming King Charles III. 1st was Prince Frederick son of George III, the 2nd was George III, the 3rd was Prince Alfred son of Queen Victoria and Albert, the 4th was Prince Philip, and the 5th was Prince Charles now King Charles III.
 
Immediately after the death of Prince Philip, Prince Charles became the Duke of Edinburgh as the eldest son of Prince Philip. So even if the Queen had outlived Charles, Prince William would have already inherited the Dukedom of Edinburgh following Charles.
I think Charles was the fifth Duke of Edinburgh before becoming King Charles III. 1st was Prince Frederick son of George III, the 2nd was George III, the 3rd was Prince Alfred son of Queen Victoria and Albert, the 4th was Prince Philip, and the 5th was Prince Charles now King Charles III.
When the title merges with the crown or becomes extinct and is then re-issued, the count starts all over. It merged with the crown when George III and Charles III ascended, and became extinct Prince Alfred died without a male heir. If Prince Edward becomes the Duke of Edinburgh, he will be the 1st Duke of Edinburgh as the title will be considered re-created.
 
Last edited:
When the title merges with the crown or becomes extinct and is then re-issued, the count starts all over. It merged with the crown when George III and Charles III ascended, and became extinct Prince Alfred died without a male heir. If Prince Edward becomes the Duke of Edinburgh, he will be the 1st Duke of Edinburgh as the title will be considered re-created.

I did not know that. Thanks for that information.
 
When the title merges with the crown or becomes extinct and is then re-issued, the count starts all over. It merged with the crown when George III and Charles III ascended, and became extinct Prince Alfred died without a male heir. If Prince Edward becomes the Duke of Edinburgh, he will be the 1st Duke of Edinburgh as the title will be considered re-created.

Indeed, so Charles was the second Duke of Edinburgh of the third creation. Edward will hopefully soon be the first Duke of Edinburgh of the fourth creation.

For comparison,
  • Edward is the second Duke of Kent of the second creation (1934);
  • Richard is the second Duke of Gloucester of the fifth creation (1928);
  • Andrew is the first Duke of York of the eighth creation (1986);
  • William is the first Duke of Cambridge of the fifth creation (2011);
  • Harry is the first Duke of Sussex of the second creation (2018).
 
Last edited:
Indeed, so Charles was the second Duke of Edinburgh of the third creation. Edward will hopefully soon be the first Duke of Edinburgh of the fourth creation.

For comparison,
  • Edward is the second Duke of Kent of the second creation (1934);
  • Richard is the second Duke of Gloucester of the fifth creation (1928);
  • Andrew is the first Duke of York of the eighth creation (1986);
  • William is the first Duke of Cambridge of the fifth creation (2011);
  • Harry is the first Duke of Sussex of the second creation (2018).

Interestingly enough, four of the sons of the future James II & VII were styled as "Duke of Cambridge" although only two of them were formally created as such. Two of them died in infancy and the other two aged three.
 
True, there are a few others cases as well with princes being styled as Duke but not (yet) created.
 
No news yet on Prince Edward being created Duke of Edinburgh. Charles was quick off the mark to create William Prince of Wales but slow on this. I wonder when it will happen as I believe it will as Charles made his parents a promise.

Maybe the Scottish nationalists are holding it up?
 
A few points about protocol:

Charles couldn't create Edward as Duke of Edinburgh until the late Duke of Edinburgh's Duchess had been buried.

It is customary to wait until anyone who used the title in any form as died before recreating unless that person has been risen to a higher level and then only with their consent. I am sure that Princess Anne who was born Princess Anne of Edinburgh will have no objection to her brother being given their father's title. Then there is Camilla who again I am sure has no objection to Sophie taking on her title of Duchess of Edinburgh but maybe Charles isn't keen on giving that title to his younger brother having held it for such a short period of time.

Let's remember that Charles lost both his parents within a relatively short period of time and has to take on all the responsibilities of King at the same time.

Giving Edward the title Duke of Edinburgh will be that definite sign that they are really gone but while he still holds it he can 'imagine' that they will be in the next room. Give the man the time to grieve for his mother. Grieving is hard and that packing up of their stuff, sorting out their precious things and knowing that all that is left is the memories is hard and for him giving his father's and his own title is something he maybe isn't ready to give away. I am probably not explaining this very well.

There is also the question of whether Edward, who is also grieving for the death of his mother may not be ready to say that final 'goodbye' to his parents and accepting that Dukedom will be the final acceptance that they are really gone.

I am sure that it will happen, in time, but it has only been six weeks or so. It took my brother and I nearly a year to finally clean out our parents' home after my father died due to some of this psychological issue of that final goodbye.
 
A few points about protocol:

Charles couldn't create Edward as Duke of Edinburgh until the late Duke of Edinburgh's Duchess had been buried.

It is customary to wait until anyone who used the title in any form as died before recreating unless that person has been risen to a higher level and then only with their consent. I am sure that Princess Anne who was born Princess Anne of Edinburgh will have no objection to her brother being given their father's title. Then there is Camilla who again I am sure has no objection to Sophie taking on her title of Duchess of Edinburgh but maybe Charles isn't keen on giving that title to his younger brother having held it for such a short period of time.

Let's remember that Charles lost both his parents within a relatively short period of time and has to take on all the responsibilities of King at the same time.

Giving Edward the title Duke of Edinburgh will be that definite sign that they are really gone but while he still holds it he can 'imagine' that they will be in the next room. Give the man the time to grieve for his mother. Grieving is hard and that packing up of their stuff, sorting out their precious things and knowing that all that is left is the memories is hard and for him giving his father's and his own title is something he maybe isn't ready to give away. I am probably not explaining this very well.

There is also the question of whether Edward, who is also grieving for the death of his mother may not be ready to say that final 'goodbye' to his parents and accepting that Dukedom will be the final acceptance that they are really gone.

I am sure that it will happen, in time, but it has only been six weeks or so. It took my brother and I nearly a year to finally clean out our parents' home after my father died due to some of this psychological issue of that final goodbye.



These are very compassionate points. This sounds like something that may happen after the coronation if it does move forward. There’s so much to do until then.
 
It is customary to wait until anyone who used the title in any form as died before recreating unless that person has been risen to a higher level and then only with their consent.

As always, if you (or anybody else) believe I have gotten any facts wrong, you are of course very welcome to say so.

I have updated this post with a third example in order to also encompass the former users of peerages' designations. In the preceding version of this post (which was written and posted in response to this specific claim being posted earlier this week and twice earlier this year), I mistakenly stated "or formerly were named" although I only meant to include those who were still using the territorial designation at the time of the potential recreation.



There is no such custom, because the very particular situation in which

1) A royal peerage reverts to the crown because the peer lacks a male heir, not because the peer becomes king,

2) the peer is survived by family members who are or formerly were named with the territorial designation of the peerage, and

3) at least one of these family members is still living when a subsequent royal dukedom is created.

has only happened for three peerages in the history of the British royal family: Cumberland, Edinburgh, and Connaught.

In two out of three of these instances when the dukedom was available for recreation during the lifetime of a person who used or formerly used its territorial designation, the dukedom was in fact recreated (Cumberland and Edinburgh). The only exception was Connaught - and that would have been politically difficult in any event, as it was located in Ireland.


The dukedom of Cumberland reverted to the crown in 1790. The next creations of royal dukedoms happened in 1799 when Princes Edward and Ernest Augustus were made dukes. The widowed Duchess of Cumberland was alive at that time, but Prince Ernest Augustus was created Duke of Cumberland.

The dukedom of Edinburgh reverted to the crown in 1900. By then there were no family members named "of Edinburgh", as the duke had become the ruling Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha in 1893 and he and his family had been named by their German titles ever since. However, his daughter Infanta Beatriz of Spain (born Princess Beatrice of Edinburgh) was still living when the dukedom of Edinburgh was recreated for Philip in 1947.

The dukedom of Connaught reverted to the crown in 1943. The remaining family members who were or had been "of Connaught" were Princess Arthur of Connaught and Lady Patricia Ramsay (who had dropped her title when she married). The only subsequent creation of a royal dukedom to happen during either of their lifetimes was for Philip in 1947. Of course, he was created Duke of Edinburgh and not Duke of Connaught, but in view of the Ireland situation, Connaught probably would not have been under consideration even if Princess Arthur and Lady Patricia had both passed away before 1947.
 
Last edited:
:previous:

The whole of the ancient province of Connaught/Connacht is in what is now the Republic of Ireland although in 1947 the entirety of the island of Ireland was still part of the king's realms. George vi remained king of Ireland until 1949 although interestingly there was a President of Ireland as well! A unique situation I think.

But yes of course it was politically impossible to have a title with a territorial designation in the then Irish Free State/that part of Ireland not in the UK.
 
Last edited:
:previous:

The whole of the ancient province of Connaught/Connacht is in what is now the Republic of Ireland although in 1947 the entirety of the island of Ireland was still part of the king's realms. George vi remained king of Ireland until 1949 although interestingly there was a President of Ireland as well! A unique situation I think.

But yes of course it was politically impossible to have a title with a territorial designation in the then Irish Free State/that part of Ireland not in the UK.

The Irish Free state was technically in existence, but the Irish wanted a republic and had made use of the increased liberalisation witin the Commonwealth to work towards a republic. The Irish State recognized the King as a sort of distant figure head for certain purposes.. (Im putting it simply)... But the Irish political heads were slow to actually declare a republic because there were still hopes that the Northern unionists would eventually desire reunification with the rest of Ireland.
 
:previous:

The whole of the ancient province of Connaught/Connacht is in what is now the Republic of Ireland although in 1947 the entirety of the island of Ireland was still part of the king's realms. George vi remained king of Ireland until 1949 although interestingly there was a President of Ireland as well! A unique situation I think.

But yes of course it was politically impossible to have a title with a territorial designation in the then Irish Free State/that part of Ireland not in the UK.

Yes its very confusing as between 1936 and 1947,Eire had 2 Heads of State.
The President
The King

It seems Eamon de Valera used the abdication as a pretext.
The Office of Governor General was abolished in December 1936.
 
Thank you Denville & An Ard Ri. :flowers:

On a lighter note Connaught/Connacht like Wessex is such a romantic & historic name! Maybe instead of Edinburgh Edward could be given Dunedin/Dùn Èideann instead. The old romantic & historic Gaelic name for Edinburgh. Unlikely I know!
 
As far as I recall, (not being great at history of that era) when Cromwell's men drove the local Irish out of their homes, they were sent to "Hell or to Connaught", suggesting that for the English there wasnt much difference between the 2 places. The west of Ireland is very beautiful but Oh lord It rains a lot there.
 
As far as I recall, (not being great at history of that era) when Cromwell's men drove the local Irish out of their homes, they were sent to "Hell or to Connaught", suggesting that for the English there wasnt much difference between the 2 places. The west of Ireland is very beautiful but Oh lord It rains a lot there.


Yes after the massacres of Irish at Drogheda,Wexford and Cashel came the Cromwellian plantations the native Irish Catholics were forced off their lands and sent to the wilds of Connemara .Thousands of others unluckier souls were transported on ships to the West Indies to work on plantations.

That was Ireland's punishment for supporting Charles I!
 
Wessex Titles

Could the King be waiting for a significant date to give the title to Edward?
The previous Duke’s wedding date, his birthday, Edward’s birthday, another special date in connection to the Edinburgh title.
 
Could the King be waiting for a significant date to give the title to Edward?
The previous Duke’s wedding date, his birthday, Edward’s birthday, another special date in connection to the Edinburgh title.

There could be a gap in recreating that title out of respect ,maybe a year after the death of the late queen?
 
Afraid to say - that I don't think it is happening any more at all.
 
well, I dont think Edward is all that bothered, and there may be political reasons for not giving him a prominent Scottish title -. and Charles has a lot to deal with right now, without debates about whether Ed should be duke of Edinburgh.
 
Afraid to say - that I don't think it is happening any more at all.

Why? The late queen and late DoE both made it clear that it was their wish that Edward gets the Dukedom of Edinburgh after Charles became king. There was no timetable put on it beyond that. The fact it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't happen ever.

There hasn't been anything since Charles became king that says he's not going to do it.
 
but Edward said a while ago that it was a "pipe dream of his father's" which suggests that he wasn't all that interested, or that he thought it was not that likely to happen.
 
"A pipe dream of his father's" doesn't seem to reconcile with an official announcement at his wedding stating it was an agreement between his parents, Charles, and him.
 
that was years ago. this is something Edward has said himself in the last few years. He may well have been keen on the idea years back when he got married, now isn't. Or with changes in the UK, Brexit, possible splitting away of Scotland etc, what seemed a good idea in 1999 may not seem such a good idea now. Or perhaps Edward never liked the idea all that much, but agreed to it, and now that his father has died, he doesn't want it at all.
 
Even if he doesn't get Edinburgh, I would still like Edward and Sophie to become the Duke of Duchess of Somewhere Else, because I think they deserve a promotion, because of their loyalty, dedication and hard work.

When Prince Edward was born, he was the spare's spare... he never whinged about it, just got on with it (after a bit of a false start admittedly); he knew he and his wife were there to support the Monarch, not to be the Monarch, and that's exactly what they've done; well done them.
 
I thnk he should have a dukedom... because the other sons have had one, and he is of a generation where the sons expected a dukedom.. But I do feel that Edward isn't that keen on Edinburgh. Perhaps he does not like the idea of being compared iwht his formidable father?
Im not a big fan of him and Sophie, but they have improved as time has passed and I hope Charles does give him a dukedom within the next year.
 
Even if he doesn't get Edinburgh, I would still like Edward and Sophie to become the Duke of Duchess of Somewhere Else, because I think they deserve a promotion, because of their loyalty, dedication and hard work.

When Prince Edward was born, he was the spare's spare... he never whinged about it, just got on with it (after a bit of a false start admittedly); he knew he and his wife were there to support the Monarch, not to be the Monarch, and that's exactly what they've done; well done them.

If you get a chance to read the book by Hugo Vickers with The Duke of Kent that came out earlier this year that is exactly what he believes - that he was to do anything that would ease the burden on his cousin. It is stated at the end of the book.
 
Took Edward and Sophie a while to learn that that was supposed to be their duty. They wanted to be business owners, not working royals and both of them were somewhat indiscreet. I think they have improved but there was room for improvement.
 
Back
Top Bottom