Future Titles and Dukedoms for the Wales Children

[DukeOfAster]

Hello all. Just curious about this. If the Earl of Wessex son ,once Edward became Duke of Edinburgh, became Earl of Wessex why is it that Prince George did not become Duke of Cambridge. Thanks.

 

[SLV]

Hmmmm, that is a very good question!

 

[Prinsara]

Hello all. Just curious about this. If the Earl of Wessex son ,once Edward became Duke of Edinburgh, became Earl of Wessex why is it that Prince George did not become Duke of Cambridge. Thanks.

I assume because a) "Duke of Cambridge" isn't really considered a subsidiary title to being Prince of Wales and b) George is styled as an HRH Prince, unlike James. He doesn't need to be styled as a peer. James doesn't outrank George simply because one has a courtesy title and the other doesn't.

Conversely, were it not for the decision of his parents, James would simply be "HRH Prince James" (of Edinburgh) right now, not Earl of Wessex.

 

[valeas]

Wasn't the title Duke of Cambridge reverted to the crown when William succeeded Prince of Wales?

 

[Prinsara]

Wasn't the title Duke of Cambridge reverted to the crown when William succeeded Prince of Wales?

No, William is still Duke of Cambridge until death or he succeeds to the throne. Remember the few hours after Charles's accession when he was "Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge".

 

[valeas]

No, William is still Duke of Cambridge until death or he succeeds to the throne. Remember the few hours after Charles's accession when he was "Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge".

Ok, thanks. I read sth different, but don't remember the source.

Maybe a good idea" so Louis can inherit a title, when George turns Duke of Cornwall.

Have a nice evening.

 

[Noble Consort Ming]

Ok, thanks. I read sth different, but don't remember the source.

Maybe a good idea" so Louis can inherit a title, when George turns Duke of Cornwall.

Have a nice evening.

Louis cannot inherit the Cambridge title. It will merge with the crown when William becomes king. If William dies before becoming king then George will inherit the Cambridge title.

 

[Curryong]

Imo, if Andrew is not alive when William becomes King then Louis, as the second son of the monarch is likely to become Duke of York. Perhaps on his wedding day? My understanding is that the Dukedom of Cambridge will be subsumed back into the Crown once William succeeds to the throne, just as the Dukedom of York did when George VI became King. It was recreated for Andrew.

 

[Curryong]

Yes there are. But the original poster, Valeas, posed the question of the future of the Dukedom of Cambridge on this thread and I and other posters were just answering it.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Yes there are. But the original poster on the topic of Prince Louis’s future titles posed the question of the future of the Dukedom of Cambridge on this thread and I and other posters were just answering it.

Yes, I am aware of that.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

Imo, if Andrew is not alive when William becomes King then Louis, as the second son of the monarch is likely to become Duke of York. Perhaps on his wedding day? My understanding is that the Dukedom of Cambridge will be subsumed back into the Crown once William succeeds to the throne, just as the Dukedom of York did when George VI became King. It was recreated for Andrew.

I highly doubt they would use Duke of York title

 

[FigTree]

I would imagine Edinburgh. I would also like to see modernisation with Charlotte getting her own Dukedom. I would also like to see all being granted for life and no further. As with the presedence of Edward. York is probably off the list for a number of years and Sussex, Kent and Gloucester will effectively be non royal. Connaught out of the question. Want to be ransacking the Dukedoms of George III kids some more.

Edit: just looked. There are no more. Opps. Need to get looking at the counties. Basically just Ediburgh left and Inwould dearly like Charlotte to have one of her own.

 

[Stefan]

I would imagine Edinburgh. I would also like to see modernisation with Charlotte getting her own Dukedom. I would also like to see all being granted for life and no further. As with the presedence of Edward. York is probably off the list for a number of years and Sussex, Kent and Gloucester will effectively be non royal. Connaught out of the question. Want to be ransacking the Dukedoms of George III kids some more.

Edit: just looked. There are no more. Opps. Need to get looking at the counties. Basically just Ediburgh left and Inwould dearly like Charlotte to have one of her own.

There is still Clarence which hasn't been used since 1892 but had been used for the second in line.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

I would imagine Edinburgh. I would also like to see modernisation with Charlotte getting her own Dukedom. I would also like to see all being granted for life and no further. As with the presedence of Edward. York is probably off the list for a number of years and Sussex, Kent and Gloucester will effectively be non royal. Connaught out of the question. Want to be ransacking the Dukedoms of George III kids some more.

Edit: just looked. There are no more. Opps. Need to get looking at the counties. Basically just Ediburgh left and Inwould dearly like Charlotte to have one of her own.

See no need, Charlotte will most likely be Princess Royal at some point after Anne’s passing. There are still the Cumberland and Albany titles that could be used as Dukedoms.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

There is also a thread for speculation about Princess Charlotte and the Princess Royal title:

Will Princess Charlotte of Cambridge get the Princess Royal title?

 

[Hans-Rickard]

Hello all. Just curious about this. If the Earl of Wessex son ,once Edward became Duke of Edinburgh, became Earl of Wessex why is it that Prince George did not become Duke of Cambridge. Thanks.

The Dukedom of Cambridge is Williams title for life or until he inherits the throne and his titles will merge with the crown.

He is just no longer known as ”The Duke of Cambridge” as the titles of the heir apparent ”Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall and in Scotland Duke of Rothesay” all outranks the ”Cambridge”-title. But he still have it

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Hello all. Just curious about this. If the Earl of Wessex son ,once Edward became Duke of Edinburgh, became Earl of Wessex why is it that Prince George did not become Duke of Cambridge. Thanks.

Edward remains the true Earl of Wessex until his death. Sons of dukes, marquesses, and earls who are heirs to their father's peerages traditionally use one of the lower titles which belong to their father. James is following that tradition by using his father's title of Earl of Wessex.

But traditionally, a son who is a Prince does not use his father's peerage title. But if and when George has a peerage of his own, he will use the peerage as his title (unless that tradition is changed).

Cumberland and Albany titles that could be used as Dukedoms.

Albany could probably be reused as it is likely extinct (given that all the living male-line descendants of the first Duke of Albany were made illegitimate in British law by the Royal Marriages Act, and illegitimate descendants cannot inherit the dukedom). But Cumberland is still suspended.

 

[Marengo]

Is there a something against using non-royal extinct Duchies for the princes, such as Manchester, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Leeds, Kingston-upon-Hull or even Buckingham? Or revive late medieval ones such as Surrey. Warwick or Hereford? Or simply like the King of Sweden create new ones, f.e. Duke of Nottingham or Torquay. I don't understand yet why the King needs to be limited in his choice to [not even] a hand full of former royal ones.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

Is there a something against using non-royal extinct Duchies for the princes, such as Manchester, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Leeds, Kingston-upon-Hull or even Buckingham? Or revive late medieval ones such as Surrey. Warwick or Hereford? Or simply like the King of Sweden create new ones, f.e. Duke of Nottingham or Torquay. I don't understand yet why the King needs to be limited in his choice to [not even] a hand full of former royal ones.

The Manchester title isn’t extinct, the titleholder just doesn’t live in the U.K and isn’t an individual with a good reputation. I don’t think the family care about using extinct non-royal dukedoms. The Earls of Warwick are alive so not an extinct peerage so Warwick can’t be used. Some of the titles have descendants so they would not be happy of others using the titles, for example in the case of the peerage, when H.H Asquith was given a peerage of Earl of Oxford, the descendants of the much older and prominent family of the previous creation (Oxford and Mortimer) voiced disapproval so the King made Oxford and Asquith instead. But I think that the BRF prefer to use ones historically relevant to the BRF not just to any peer. There’s the Earldom of Nottingham so can’t be a Duke of Nottingham. The Earldom of Surrey belongs to the Howard family head by the Duke of Norfolk.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

Edward remains the true Earl of Wessex until his death. Sons of dukes, marquesses, and earls who are heirs to their father's peerages traditionally use one of the lower titles which belong to their father. James is following that tradition by using his father's title of Earl of Wessex.

But traditionally, a son who is a Prince does not use his father's peerage title. But if and when George has a peerage of his own, he will use the peerage as his title (unless that tradition is changed).




Albany could probably be reused as it is likely extinct (given that all the living male-line descendants of the first Duke of Albany were made illegitimate in British law by the Royal Marriages Act, and illegitimate descendants cannot inherit the dukedom). But Cumberland is still suspended.

Legally the title isn’t used because it is suspended, however the last holder still has male descendants but they of course can’t use it. There is Cumberland too, even the descendants don’t use the title either.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Legally the title isn’t used because it is suspended, however the last holder still has male descendants but they of course can’t use it. There is Cumberland too, even the descendants don’t use the title either.

When there are no longer any descendants who would be in line to the title even if the suspension was lifted, then the title is extinct and not just suspended. That is probably the case for Albany, as explained in the post I linked to. The male descendants are probably illegitimate for UK law, and illegitimate sons cannot inherit British peerages.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

When there are no longer any descendants who would be in line to the title even if the suspension was lifted, then the title is extinct and not just suspended. That is probably the case for Albany, as explained in the post I linked to. The male descendants are probably illegitimate for UK law, and illegitimate sons cannot inherit British peerages.

They aren’t illegitimate in the normal sense of the word, but because of the suspension. Anyways the titles can be used or not by the current BRF if they wish

 

[Tatiana Maria]

They aren’t illegitimate in the normal sense of the word, but because of the suspension.

Not because of the suspension, but because of the Royal Marriages Act of 1772. I'm not sure what you mean by "normal sense of the word", but I mean illegitimate in the sense that their parents or grandparents etc. were not considered married in the eyes of the United Kingdom (even though they were considered married under the laws of Germany). Even if the peerage had never been suspended, that would still be the case.

Again, please see the post I linked to.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Royal correspondent Robert Jobson wrote in his book "Our King: Charles III" that King Charles III would like the dukedom of Edinburgh to, after Prince Edward's death, be recreated for Princess Charlotte.

"Although the King has made his brother Edward the new Duke of Edinburgh, the title is only for life. After Edward dies, Charles has made it clear Charlotte (now aged seven) should become Duchess of Edinburgh."
​

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/...-away-Charles-foraged-mushrooms-Birkhall.html

I assume Mr. Jobson has his source(s), but I find it difficult to believe that a man who refers to his nieces as Mrs. Michael Tindall, Mrs. Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi and Mrs. Jack Brooksbank would approve of women being granted peerages in their own right.

If it is true then I would wonder if the King has done the math. Prince Edward is 51 years older than Princess Charlotte, and if he is as long-lived as his parents, she will be in her late 40s by the time the dukedom of Edinburgh becomes available once more.

 

[Marengo]

I find it difficult to believe that Mr.Jobson will know what the King's wishes are after his brother's and possibly his own death too.

The Duke of Edinburgh may be alive for a long time still -if the longlevity of his parents is anything to go by, which means that in this scenario Pss Charlotte would have to wait until she is 50 for such a title while her brothers will most likely receive it upon their marriage, which most likely will be before their 50th birthday.

That King Charles [or possibly King William] would like to bestow a dukedom on Pss Charlotte does not seem uncredible to me. King Carl Gustav changed this for his daghters too f.e. and it is a reflection of changing values. The Spanish RF started doing this in the 1960s already.

 

[HenRach Dominion]

Since there's a good chance HRH Princess Charlotte of Wales will marry after HRH The Prince of Wales becomes king, why not give her the dukedom of Cambridge? It would be a nice connection between father and daughter.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

That King Charles [or possibly King William] would like to bestow a dukedom on Pss Charlotte does not seem uncredible to me. King Carl Gustav changed this for his daghters too f.e. and it is a reflection of changing values. The Spanish RF started doing this in the 1960s already.

I think Spain is a bit different as its royal family and nobility has historically not been as discriminatory towards their female members to the same degree compared to most other countries. As early as the 1840s, Queen Isabel II conferred hereditary titles of nobility on her half-sisters (as well as her half-brothers) from her mother's morganatic second marriage. In the non-royal nobility, most noble titles were inheritable by daughters in the absence of sons, even before the implementation of gender-equal primogeniture in 2006. And Infantas have always been treated in the same way as Infantes in terms of when they were or were not permitted to share their rank and title with their spouses and children.

King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden, as you pointed out, reformed Swedish royal titulature to treat daughters less unequally to sons. In addition to introducing duchessdoms for princesses in 1980, he dropped the male-only title of "Sveriges Arvfurste" upon the birth of Princess Madeleine in 1982 so that she and her brother Prince Carl Philip would have the same titles. And of course, he titled his female-line grandchildren in the same manner as his male-line grandchildren.

But up to now the public decisions of King Charles III regarding titles haven't yet shown signs of following King Carl XVI Gustaf's example. King Charles III continues to refer to his niece for example as Mrs. Michael Tindall (whereas King Carl XVI Gustaf refers to even the British members of his extended family as e.g. Mrs. Ursula Ambler, not Mrs. James Ambler) and recently decided to maintain the old male-line rule so that his male-line grandchildren became Prince and Princess while female-line grandchildren will remain Mr. and Mrs., unlike in the Swedish royal family.

 

[classyjackie]

and recently decided to maintain the old male-line rule so that his male-line grandchildren became Prince and Princess while female-line grandchildren will remain Mr. and Mrs., unlike in the Swedish royal family.

I really wish the BRF would get rid of the "only male-line grandchildren will have titles" it's very outdated and unfair.

 

[FigTree]

Well modernisation is very much needed but Zara too must be happy with such a title. UK culture is significantly behind Europe in such matters. In fact when my first friend got married over 10 years ago, I innocently asked her if she was keeping her name and she looked shocked and appalled and said several men she knew would be insulted if their wife kept their name. I was shocked, given I have another view.

They do need to modernise though. In this day and age it’s really beyond a joke. What Louis gets, Charlotte should get. All of it.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I really wish the BRF would get rid of the "only male-line grandchildren will have titles" it's very outdated and unfair.

Totally agree.

I would limit the HRH to the heir apparent and spouse in each generation only and so remove it from ALL younger siblings and spouses.

That would then make it easier for the younger siblings to actually live a normal life with a job and no expectation of being a working royal.