Edinburgh and Wessex Titles


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I really believe he was always going to receive it, unless it had already been agreed before the death of the Queen that it was not going to happen. I cannot see Charles disregarding his mother and fathers wishes on this matter. There has never been an announcement one way or another,
 
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-Edward-Princess-Charlotte-Queens-wishes.html

The DM reports Charles is considering giving Edward the Duke of Edinburgh title now. It also suggests one requirement may be for it to pass back to the crown after Edward's death - I think this makes a lot of sense to me TBH and is a neat solution for all.

Apparently there is still no final decision as the article peppers "likely" and "might" throughout.

The headline seems to be insinuating that the "likely" change of heart stems from a desire not to cause a rift with the Earl of Wessex. Does the headline writer mean to imply that the King is worried about creating a potential "Denmark" situation? There is no evidence for that speculation in the article.

From the article:


A source close to Edward said: 'It was a slap in the face, particularly when Edward has been such a help to Charles over the Andrew farrago.

'Also because the Queen had promised him the title before she died and it was always believed by Edward and Sophie that, in time, the title would be passed down to their son, Viscount Severn.

'Now it does look like the tide is turning. Clearly the King has had time to reflect on the late Queen's wishes."

For someone blunt enough to say "slap in the face", this anonymous supporter of Prince Edward is being surprisingly diplomatic by saying "the Queen had promised him" while omitting the fact that Charles himself publicly made that same promise to his brother in 1999.

This person seems to believe it is important to the Wessexes that the title be passed down to their son. (The 1999 agreement made no mention of the future dukedom's inheritance.) If it is true, I wonder if the couple specifically wishes their son - and not their daughter - to become a duke, or if they merely want the Edinburgh dukedom to live on.
 
Last edited:
I hope this is true.

TRH The Wessexes have taken on a lot more responsibilities since the reduction of the number of working royals, handling their increased roles with poise and grace. This will probably continue more when HRH The Prince of Wales becomes king while his children are still growing into their roles. HRH The Earl of Wessex was promised the title by HM The King, and it would look poorly if HM The King reneged on it.

The source saying the HRH The Earl of Wessex felt betrayed by the delay feels authentic to me. I always felt that the arguments about HRH The Earl of Wessex not wanting the Duke of Edinburgh title were a way to absolve HM The King's possible decision not to give it to him.

With the constant talk of disloyal family members, if this is the way loyalty is reward, then what is the incentive to do so?
 
With the constant talk of disloyal family members, if this is the way loyalty is reward, then what is the incentive to do so?

Agree totally. IMO I think Edward should be the next Duke of Edinburgh, for his lifetime, then it can go back to the crown, and James can be Earl of Wessex. As someone before me pointed out, it's a nice elegant solution. I'm hoping it will happen in March, on Edward's birthday.
 
Ok everyone, I think we should all be cautious here and not get ahead of ourselves.

Full disclosure: I personally would like to see Edward get the Duke of Edinburgh title (with the usual heirs male remainder) and actually I think he will in fact receive just that, probably this year - in March on his birthday (not March 2024 as one Mail source suggests) or in May at the time of the coronation.

BUT - and this is a big but: I don't believe this Daily Mail article brings any of us any more close to KNOWING what will in fact happen or when.

Everyone loves to speculate (myself included) but that's all we're doing - Daily Mail included. I admit I enjoy the Mail from time to time as a guilty pleasure - I especially think they have copious high quality photos but I take any text (including some photo captions) with a huge boulder of salt.

The Mail, like all the tabloids puts numerous articles quoting unnamed (close to the royals sources) all the time. Close, inside or high level are fairly subjective terms. And as one poster pointed out, there's lots of "could", "maybe" and "possible" throughout the piece. I'm not an insider but I can speculate on what might happen. It might, it might not.

Sometimes I think the tabloids publish things trying to provoke either a confirmation or denial from the palace and thereby create an actual real piece of news.

It's true that sometimes they seem to be reporting things that actually come true but the details vary.

If there is any nugget of truth to this story (I personally wish, but doubt there is), I would say that perhaps a source has leaked that a title announcement is imminent and so the Mail is putting this out there so they don't look so wrong as the the previous trend was that HM was NOT going to bestow the title.

The King will bestow (or not) when he sees fit and not a minute before, and I'm sure the Wessexes (whether they like it or not), fully understand this - they know the game. Unlike (apparently) the Markles of Montecito.

My guess, which is about as accurate (or inaccurate) as anyone else's, is that Edward gets the Dukedom this year with the usual remainder. I have no idea if there will be any subsidiary titles. None are really needed in this case and I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that this would be the first Dukedom created without subsidiary titles (if that happens) since Duke of Windsor was created on Dec. 12, 1936 (and Letters Patent issued March 8, 1937) Of course we can't be 100% sure about that either because I believe the documentation re: The Duke of Windsor letters patent is sealed as a state secret until at least 2037.

One final thought - they talk in the DM article of Duke of Edinburgh being a senior title in the Union. It was only senior because it was last created for and then held for 73 plus years by the consort of the longest reigning Queen in history. Yes it's special in the family (at the moment) but in my opinion it should not be given special consideration like the titles Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall (& Duke of Rothesay, etc.) and Princess Royal. Even Duke of York, due to its association with the present holder (despite having been proudly held by The late Queen's father and grandfather), is now tainted and may not be use for second sons as much. I personally think Louis will get Duke of Cambridge as a nod to HIS father William who was known as D of C for 11 years prior to Sept. 8th last year. Charlotte will become Princess Royal and The Dukedom of York will take a rest for a few decades/centuries until the memory of Andrew fades.

We shall all see - (or we won't) ?
 
Last edited:
I am hoping that Edward receives the dukedom as promised and that it is hereditary. The title devolved to Charles because he was the DofE's eldest son. That he was also Prince of Wales and would go on to become King is irrelevant. The title changed from father to son and the same should happen if the promise is kept and Edward becomes Duke. Louise is a Princess in all but name but would not be in line to receive the title just as Princess Beatrice cannot be her father's heir.
 
I think a switch to life dukedoms in the royal family would be just one more step in the very long trend away from non-royal dukedoms. In the 19th century, the granting of dukedoms outside of the royal family slowed down and then stopped completely, and this would simply be an extension of that informal policy to stop the titles from ever escaping the royal orbit, as the Kent and Gloucester (and possibly Sussex) dukedoms will.

But if Edward does get a life dukedom, we probably won't find out in this reign exactly how it might work for younger members of the family. Edward would end up a duke for life but everything else would be hereditary. That might be a nice balance to be repeated, one day, for the next generation, or it might just be a brief anachronism on the road to everything being for life.
 
Last edited:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-Edward-Princess-Charlotte-Queens-wishes.html

The DM reports Charles is considering giving Edward the Duke of Edinburgh title now. It also suggests one requirement may be for it to pass back to the crown after Edward's death - I think this makes a lot of sense to me TBH and is a neat solution for all.

What's the point of giving Edward a title for life? As far as I know the only life peerages are baronies, given to members of the public. If he is goign to have the title, it should be like any other royal dukedom and pass to his heir.
 
The 'for life' is the usual tabloid bs. That applies to baronies nothing else.

Either Edward is getting the title or he is not. It's not even that historic of a title. Its not like York they would want to continue in the main family.

I don't see Charles disregarding the wishes of his parents. Honestly it seems that just with the death of the queen and everything going on they simply have had more pressing things to see to then the title.
 
In MHO It will be fair enough to give Prince Edward the title of Duke of Edinburgh as per the wishes of the late Queen and Prince Philip as Her late Majesty’s wish that Camilla should become Queen Consort. Besides Prince Edward deserves it . So hopefully we will see that happening.
 
As far as I know the only life peerages are baronies, given to members of the public.
The 'for life' is the usual tabloid bs. That applies to baronies nothing else.

Any degree of peerage can be granted for life, as has happened at times in the past (mostly for women). Baronies are the only life peerages that entitle the holder to sit in Parliament, but that wouldn't be relevant here.
 
On itself all that hullabaloo for Edward to receive another title: he already holds more designations than Princess Anne, Prince Andrew, Prince Harry, Prince Richard, Prince Edward, Prince Michael and receives a 5th designation:

1. Prince of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern-Ireland (1964)
2. 1st Earl of Wessex (created 1999)
3. 1st Viscount Severn (created 1999)
4. 1st Earl of Forfar (created 2019)
5. 1st Duke of Edinburgh (created 2023)
 
Last edited:
Harry and Andrew both have 4 titles. (thats is saying Archie has not been given one)
Edward only has 3 - Severn is with James.

Edward only received 2 titles when he got married - Harry and Andrew received 3 each. And we are not even looking at William.
 
Edward has three titles - Wessex, Forfar and Severn (Wessex and Forfar are separate titles even though both Earldoms. They were also created separately.)

Andrew has three titles - York Inverness and Killyleagh

Harry has three titles - Sussex, Dumbarton and Kilkeel.

They also have two styles - HRH and Prince.
 
Any degree of peerage can be granted for life, as has happened at times in the past (mostly for women). Baronies are the only life peerages that entitle the holder to sit in Parliament, but that wouldn't be relevant here.

The Life Peerages Act from 1958 limited life peerages to only being in the degree of baron.

Any life peerage before that is irrelevant as that is the current Act and it is clear - any new life peerage can only be for a Baron.

ALL life peers are also entitled to a seat in the House of Lords - and that would include Edward if given Edinburgh only for life.

[....]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm hoping that the reports are true and that Edward and Sophie get the Titles. Edward and Sophie do great work for the Duke of Edinburgh Awards . I believe they are the Chairmen and Trustees anyway.

It is only fitting, as it was The Queen and Prince Philip's wish. And Charles agreed at that time too. They KNEW that the Title would then go to a (future) son in any case.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Edward has three titles - Wessex, Forfar and Severn (Wessex and Forfar are separate titles even though both Earldoms. They were also created separately.)

Andrew has three titles - York Inverness and Killyleagh

Harry has three titles - Sussex, Dumbarton and Kilkeel.

They also have two styles - HRH and Prince.

HRH and Prince are labeled as titles, styles, and attributes in the 1917 Letters Patent. Perhaps you meant to say "peerages"?

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/prince_highness_docs.htm#1917_2
 
Any degree of peerage can be granted for life, as has happened at times in the past (mostly for women). Baronies are the only life peerages that entitle the holder to sit in Parliament, but that wouldn't be relevant here.

The Life Peerages Act from 1958 limited life peerages to only being in the degree of baron.

Any life peerage before that is irrelevant as that is the current Act and it is clear - any new life peerage can only be for a Baron.

ALL life peers are also entitled to a seat in the House of Lords - and that would include Edward if given Edinburgh only for life.

I agree with wbenson. I have not noted any text in the Life Peerages Act 1958 which limits the sovereign's powers existing before 1958. The long title of the Act is "An Act to make provision for the creation of life peerages carrying the right to sit and vote in the House of Lords", not "An Act to limit, etc."


https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/6-7/21


Life Peerages Act 1958
1958 CHAPTER 21 6 and 7 Eliz 2

An Act to make provision for the creation of life peerages carrying the right to sit and vote in the House of Lords.

[30th April 1958]
1 Power to create life peerages carrying right to sit in the House of Lords.

(1) F1... Her Majesty shall have power by letters patent to confer on any person a peerage for life having the incidents specified in subsection (2) of this section.

(2) A peerage conferred under this section shall, during the life of the person on whom it is conferred, entitle him—

(a) to rank as a baron under such style as may be appointed by the letters patent; and

(b) subject to subsection (4) of this section, to receive writs of summons to attend the House of Lords and sit and vote therein accordingly,

and shall expire on his death.​

(3) A life peerage may be conferred under this section on a woman.

(4) Nothing in this section shall enable any person to receive a writ of summons to attend the House of Lords, or to sit and vote in that House, at any time when disqualified therefor by law.​


Could you cite the passage in the Act or the legal authority on which you base your interpretation?
 
If the title is granted as non-hereditary it does sort of defeat the purpose of the late Duke of Edinburgh wanting to pass on his title.

I don't really see the problem in it becoming non-royal one day. Are they worried about having a Duke of Edinburgh who has nothing to with the Duke of Edinburgh awards?
 
What's the point of giving Edward a title for life? As far as I know the only life peerages are baronies, given to members of the public. If he is goign to have the title, it should be like any other royal dukedom and pass to his heir.

Maybe James don’t want it ?

He will never be a working royal anyway and obviously does not like the attention at all, so i can understand if he doesn’t want to become a non-royal Duke.
 
James already is known by a courtesy title and will one day be the earl of Wessex and Forfar, so, will never be anonymous as he will always be recognized as a member of the royal family whether as Earl of Wessex or Duke of Edinburgh.
 
As far as I can see from the article, it is one person discussing the possibility of a life dukedom, and this person may just as well be speculating (notice the "might"):


One source told The Mail on Sunday that the King might ask for the title to revert to the Crown after Edward dies rather than being passed to his son.

An insider said: 'The problem is you can have a situation where, in future, a senior title like Edinburgh, which is very important to the Union, is eventually held by someone far removed from the Throne.'

My interpretation of their comment is that because the late Dukedom of Edinburgh is in the special position of being a dukedom with a distinguished royal history and a Scottish territorial designation, this person believes it should continue to be borne by senior royals in the future as a mark of the relationship between the Crown and Scotland.


I don't see Charles disregarding the wishes of his parents. Honestly it seems that just with the death of the queen and everything going on they simply have had more pressing things to see to then the title.

His spokespersons have stated on the record more than once in the past two years that "no final decisions have been taken" / "no decisions have been made" regarding the dukedom, so on his own account he has at least considered the possibility of disregarding the wishes of his parents (as well as his own formally announced agreement in 1999).

https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f114/wessex-titles-32557-11.html#post2514508
 
From the point of the view of the Palace, I think life peerages offer several advantages that could be perceived (assuming this is really being considered):
  • There's long been an aversion to new non-royal dukes, and a royal dukedom is in some ways simply a time-delayed creation of just that.
  • Life dukedoms would allow for titles closely associated with the royal family to remain that way, rather than falling away to collateral lines. Once a title has been granted several times, only to royalty, letting it spiral off to eventual strangers could feel a little like selling off the family jewels. Perhaps it might be better to let the next duke (or duchess?) of York use that title for life rather than relying on luck (or a curse) to return it to availability naturally as has happened so many times already.
  • Relatedly, the "heirs male" remainders are now extremely outdated, but expanding that to straight primogeniture would make it all the more likely that the titles would fall away.
  • In the era of the "working" distinction, a hereditary title for a junior line could fuel a perception that a "non-working" member of the family is in line for prestige above his pay grade. If there's ever a move to a regime where titles=work, I can't imagine having to try to explain that a dukedom—"girding him with a sword and putting a cap of honour and a coronet of gold on his head"—isn't that kind of title.
 
Last edited:
I always thought this might be something given to Edward on his 60th birthday. That would lead to another year of speculation however.
 
From the point of the view of the Palace, I think life peerages offer several advantages that could be perceived (assuming this is really being considered):
  • There's long been an aversion to new non-royal dukes, and a royal dukedom is in some ways simply a time-delayed creation of just that.
  • Life dukedoms would allow for titles closely associated with the royal family to remain that way, rather than falling away to collateral lines. Once a title has been granted several times, only to royalty, letting it spiral off to eventual strangers could feel a little like selling off the family jewels. Perhaps it might be better to let the next duke (or duchess?) of York use that title for life rather than relying on luck (or a curse) to return it to availability naturally as has happened so many times already.
  • Relatedly, the "heirs male" remainders are now extremely outdated, but expanding that to straight primogeniture would make it all the more likely that the titles would fall away.
  • In the era of the "working" distinction, a hereditary title for a junior line could fuel a perception that a "non-working" member of the family is in line for prestige above his pay grade. If there's ever a move to a regime where titles=work, I can't imagine having to try to explain that a dukedom—"girding him with a sword and putting a cap of honour and a coronet of gold on his head"—isn't that kind of title.

Still, even if that is the way they want to go, it would make much more sense to start doing so for future generations (starting from William's children - as they are also the first generation in which brothers no longer are ahead of their sisters in the line of succession) than to make single one person out in the previous generation, while his brother and nephew - who is the youngest son in the next generation- already got a hereditary dukedom.
 
What's the point of giving Edward a title for life? As far as I know the only life peerages are baronies, given to members of the public. If he is goign to have the title, it should be like any other royal dukedom and pass to his heir.

Life titles at the rank of duke (or duchess) have been the norm for members of the Royal Family in Sweden and, more recently, in Spain. That modality of honors ensures that certain titles of historical significance remain in use only by the immediate family (usually children and grandchildren) of the current monarch and, over time, avoids a growth in the number of extant non-royal dukedoms, which is now seen as undesirable. Furthermore, the move from hereditary peerage to life peerage awards within the Royal Family would make it easier to eliminate gender discrimination in the titles held by princes and princesses. It would be a significant step towards the intended "modernization" of the Royal House for which the King claims to stand.
 
Edward being the DoE fulfills the agreement and their parents' wishes and presumably Edward's. There was nothing about then-nonexistent James in the agreement — and nothing to suggest that very-quiet and private Viscount Severn, who's going to be an Earl anyway, even wants to be a Duke. So this may be the best possible solution, anomalous or not.

Assuming that it will happen, I think the King should do it this March, before the Coronation, and benefit from appearing generous and fraternal.
 
Edward being the DoE fulfills the agreement and their parents' wishes and presumably Edward's. There was nothing about then-nonexistent James in the agreement — and nothing to suggest that very-quiet and private Viscount Severn, who's going to be an Earl anyway, even wants to be a Duke. So this may be the best possible solution, anomalous or not.

Assuming that it will happen, I think the King should do it this March, before the Coronation, and benefit from appearing generous and fraternal.
I think if Philip wanted the title to go to one of his sons, he also wanted it to go on and pass to his grandsons and so on.
 
I think if Philip wanted the title to go to one of his sons, he also wanted it to go on and pass to his grandsons and so on.

Exactly, it is also one of the reasons that he insisted that his (new) surname was somehow passed on to his descendants - which resulted in the compromise of the name of the royal house remaining Windsor but his descendants being Mountbatten-Windsor.
 
Back
Top Bottom