Titles of the Edinburgh Children

[sophie25]

BTW I do like Edward and Sophie but I think the whole issue regarding their childrens titles has been a bit of a mess.

 

[Denville]

BTW I do like Edward and Sophie but I think the whole issue regarding their childrens titles has been a bit of a mess.

I think its rather foolish to have raised the issue of them taking HRH at this late stage but I think it was a good idea to have them use the rank of the children of an Earl. Possibly Sophie began to feel that her children should have the same titles as Andrew's girls.. and I think the queen never liked the idea of her grandchildren not have HRH. So she was willing to agree to it.. However IMO its unlikely that the children want to be HRH and wont take it up.

 

[Alison H]

I think it might look questionable for Louise to start using the title without doing royal duties, but, if she decides to do both, I don't see a problem. However, she may well be hoping to go on to university, in which case it's going to be nearly 4 years before she'd be in a position to take on a lot of royal engagements.


For her sake, I kind of hope that she decides to lead a private life. If she decides to become a working royal, it won't be long before people are making comments about her clothes, her hair, her weight, etc, and any boyfriends will come under so much scrutiny that they might be put off. But I do think she could do a good job, and another pair of hands in the younger generation would certainly be welcome.

 

[Claire]

BTW I do like Edward and Sophie but I think the whole issue regarding their children's titles has been a bit of a mess.

I agree - I understand that there was a request to release a letter patent or that there was a letter patent. But it never happened. I doubt we will ever be told the reasoning of the palace.

Looking back now - if the patent exist. It might have solved many problems - and clarified a lot of issues.

 

[Denville]

I think it might look questionable for Louise to start using the title without doing royal duties, but, if she decides to do both, I don't see a problem. However, she may well be hoping to go on to university, in which case it's going to be nearly 4 years before she'd be in a position to take on a lot of royal engagements.


For her sake, I kind of hope that she decides to lead a private life. If she decides to become a working royal, it won't be long before people are making comments about her clothes, her hair, her weight, etc, and any boyfriends will come under so much scrutiny that they might be put off. But I do think she could do a good job, and another pair of hands in the younger generation would certainly be welcome.

I think that they might be thinking of flexible hours so to speak.... whether she becomes HRH or not.. she could take on some patronages on a part time basis while at Uni, and later, poss when she marries or has a career, she can slip back to not working for the family. I think that with the sudden loss of some people and others getting older, now, the RF may be thinking of "part time helpers" provided it is clear that its on an "as needed for a few years" basis rather than a young royal becoming a full time worker for life as has tended to be the case.

 

[Denville]

I agree - I understand that there was a request to release a letter patent or that there was a letter patent. But it never happened. I doubt we will ever be told the reasoning of the palace.

Looking back now - if the patent exist. It might have solved many problems - and clarified a lot of issues.

I dont think that there was a lot to clarify, albeit Sophi'es talking about it did make things more unclear. I think that Ed and Sophie at the time of their marriage saw themselves as mainly private people wiht their own careers. So they were happy with the children not being HRH. But their careers did not go that well and there was a slot for them to come in and help more and more and now as the queen is a lot older, things have changed...

 

[Alison H]

And, 18 years ago, they would have assumed that Harry, Harry's future wife, Andrew and probably Beatrice and Eugenie would all be full time working royals by the time Louise had grown up, meaning that the Wessexes would be well down the list. Yes, Edward's further down the line of succession than he was in 1999, but over half the people ahead of him are aged under 9. Things have a habit of not turning out the way you'd expected!

 

[Denville]

And, 18 years ago, they would have assumed that Harry, Harry's future wife, Andrew and probably Beatrice and Eugenie would all be full time working royals by the time Louise had grown up, meaning that the Wessexes would be well down the list. Yes, Edward's further down the line of succession than he was in 1999, but over half the people ahead of him are aged under 9. Things have a habit of not turning out the way you'd expected!

probably, though Im not sure if they really thought that Bea and Eugenie would be full time royals.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Have responded here: https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...he-british-monarchy-44877-85.html#post2442459

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Although Prince Charles obviously was not yet king when Prince Edward married and the announcement about his future children's titles were made, an anonymous courtier claimed in November 2022 that Charles intended the Wessex children's treatment (as opposed to the York daughters' princess titles) to be the "policy" going forward.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...dinburgh-title-Prince-Edward-slim-effort.html

[A courtier] said: 'The King wants to slim down the monarchy, as is well known. That means it wouldn't make sense to make the Earl the Duke of Edinburgh. It's a hereditary title which would then be passed on to the Earl and Countess of Wessex's son, James, Viscount Severn.

'Essentially, this was accepted by the Earl when he agreed that his children would not be a prince or princess.'

Although the daughters of Edward's elder brother, Princes Andrew, are princesses, that came about long before King Charles's 'slim-down' agenda.

'There was a policy change', the source added.
​

 

[RoyalHighness 2002]

Although Prince Charles obviously was not yet king when Prince Edward married and the announcement about his future children's titles were made, an anonymous courtier claimed in November 2022 that Charles intended the Wessex children's treatment (as opposed to the York daughters' princess titles) to be the "policy" going forward.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...dinburgh-title-Prince-Edward-slim-effort.html

[A courtier] said: 'The King wants to slim down the monarchy, as is well known. That means it wouldn't make sense to make the Earl the Duke of Edinburgh. It's a hereditary title which would then be passed on to the Earl and Countess of Wessex's son, James, Viscount Severn.

'Essentially, this was accepted by the Earl when he agreed that his children would not be a prince or princess.'

Although the daughters of Edward's elder brother, Princes Andrew, are princesses, that came about long before King Charles's 'slim-down' agenda.

'There was a policy change', the source added.
​

But a hereditary title is still in place regardless, that doesn't make any sense IMO. Sure you can attempt to set a precedent, but regardless a peerage will be passed on, so what's the point?

 

[Sunnystar]

But a hereditary title is still in place regardless, that doesn't make any sense IMO. Sure you can attempt to set a precedent, but regardless a peerage will be passed on, so what's the point?

That whole quote makes no sense because the Prince/Princess issue is completely unrelated to the hereditary title the parent who is the child of a monarch has or does not have. If Edward or Andrew had no hereditary title, their children would still be HRH Prince/Princess as grandchildren of the monarch in the male line, just like Prince Michael of Kent.

I've always been of the opinion that Charles wanted to limit the HRH Prince/Princess to just the children of the monarch as well as the heir's children and the children of the heir's heir. And, I think Elizabeth agreed, in theory, but didn't want to formally strip those who already had the HRH Prince/Princess titles. The fly in the ointment in all this turned out to be Harry, who clearly didn't agree with his father.

 

[Denville]

That whole quote makes no sense because the Prince/Princess issue is completely unrelated to the hereditary title the parent who is the child of a monarch has or does not have. If Edward or Andrew had no hereditary title, their children would still be HRH Prince/Princess as grandchildren of the monarch in the male line, just like Prince Michael of Kent.

I've always been of the opinion that Charles wanted to limit the HRH Prince/Princess to just the children of the monarch as well as the heir's children and the children of the heir's heir. And, I think Elizabeth agreed, in theory, but didn't want to formally strip those who already had the HRH Prince/Princess titles. The fly in the ointment in all this turned out to be Harry, who clearly didn't agree with his father.

I dont think that Charles wanted to take away HRHS from those who had them, either. He wanted Harry and H's chidlren to retain that rank but he was expecting Harry to be a working royal. Harry did not want to be a full time working royal

 

[Iluvbertie]

That whole quote makes no sense because the Prince/Princess issue is completely unrelated to the hereditary title the parent who is the child of a monarch has or does not have. If Edward or Andrew had no hereditary title, their children would still be HRH Prince/Princess as grandchildren of the monarch in the male line, just like Prince Michael of Kent.

I've always been of the opinion that Charles wanted to limit the HRH Prince/Princess to just the children of the monarch as well as the heir's children and the children of the heir's heir. And, I think Elizabeth agreed, in theory, but didn't want to formally strip those who already had the HRH Prince/Princess titles. The fly in the ointment in all this turned out to be Harry, who clearly didn't agree with his father.

Prince Michael of Kent's father, though, had an hereditary title, like Edward and Andrew have. His older brother inherited the title and he was the spare to that title until the Earl of St Andrew's was born and now there are another 5 sons/grandsons of his older brother between him and the title.

 

[Mbruno]

That whole quote makes no sense because the Prince/Princess issue is completely unrelated to the hereditary title the parent who is the child of a monarch has or does not have. If Edward or Andrew had no hereditary title, their children would still be HRH Prince/Princess as grandchildren of the monarch in the male line, just like Prince Michael of Kent.

I've always been of the opinion that Charles wanted to limit the HRH Prince/Princess to just the children of the monarch as well as the heir's children and the children of the heir's heir. And, I think Elizabeth agreed, in theory, but didn't want to formally strip those who already had the HRH Prince/Princess titles. The fly in the ointment in all this turned out to be Harry, who clearly didn't agree with his father.

I think that the courtier made it clear that the King is opposed to James and Louise being syled Prince/Princess, even though Sophie said they would have the the right to choose to be called that when they turned 18.

It is unfortunate because the King is following a double standard with James/Louise on one hand and his own grandchildren, Archie and Lilibet, on the other. The argument that Beatrice and Eugenie are "different" because they already used the title of Princess before the King's "slimming down" agenda is not consistent in my opinion with the fact that Archie and Lilibet did not use the same titles until the last week, which is already six months into the new reign. Why are Archie and Liilibet different from James and Louise then other than the fact that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex insist on their children being styled Prince/Princess whereas the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh do not?

It is also interesting to note the difference in the way the Sussexes and the Wessexes (now the Edinburghs) have approached the issue of their children's titles. The Sussexes, like Sophie, said that the children would have "the choice" to use the title or not when they came of age, but the Wessexes decided, on behalf of their children, to style them as children of an earl only while they were underage, while the Sussexes decided the opposite, i.e. that the children should be Prince/Princess and could then "drop" the title if they wished, rather than picking it up, when they grew up.

[.....]

 

[wartenberg7]

I think that the courtier made it clear that the King is opposed to James and Louise being syled Prince/Princess, even though Sophie said they would have the the right to choose to be called that when they turned 18.

It is unfortunate because the King is following a double standard with James/Louise on one hand and his own grandchildren, Archie and Lilibet, on the other. The argument that Beatrice and Eugenie are "different" because they already used the title of Princess before the King's "slimming down" agenda is not consistent in my opinion with the fact that Archie and Lilibet did not use the same titles until the last week, which is already six months into the new reign. Why are Archie and Liilibet different from James and Louise then other than the fact that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex insist on their children being styled Prince/Princess whereas the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh do not?

It is also interesting to note the difference in the way the Sussexes and the Wessexes (now the Edinburghs) have approached the issue of their children's titles. The Sussexes, like Sophie, said that the children would have "the choice" to use the title or not when they came of age, but the Wessexes decided, on behalf of their children, to style them as children of an earl only while they were underage, while the Sussexes decided the opposite, i.e. that the children should be Prince/Princess and could then "drop" the title if they wished, rather than picking it up, when they grew up.

[.....]

Well, Edward and Sophie, different from the Sussexes, have always been and are loyal and actively working members of the Royal Family, which Harry and his wife decided to refuse. That, of course, is a big difference and must certainly also reflect on the children when it comes to titles!

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I do not get the hullabaloo about the Edinburgh Dukedom being non-hereditary. Alexander Windsor, Earl of Ulster will be the next Duke of Gloucester. George Windsor, Earl of St Andrews will be the next Duke of Kent. I fail to see why James Mountbatten-Windsor, Earl of Wessex can not be the next Duke of Edinburgh.

What is the "gain" for him not inheriting a ducal title while there are no less than 30 dukes walking around? From all these ducal peerages, only the Edinburgh one is not hereditary. I honestly fail to see any advantage, gain or "modernity" to that.

Later we will see a Duke's son surrounded by Northumberland, Montrose, Beaufort, Norfolk, Marlborough, effortlessly inherited their titles and oh yes... no, James, no... "we are modernized, you can not inherit your father's dukedom. And yes, your cousin Archie will be a Duke. You will not become a Duke. We are Modern now, you see?"

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Well, Edward and Sophie, different from the Sussexes, have always been and are loyal and actively working members of the Royal Family, which Harry and his wife decided to refuse. That, of course, is a big difference and must certainly also reflect on the children when it comes to titles!

But how does that difference justify the then-Wessexes' children using lower titles than the Sussexes' children? The other way around would make more logical sense.

 

[Mbruno]

I do not get the hullabaloo about the Edinburgh Dukedom being non-hereditary. Alexander Windsor, Earl of Ulster will be the next Duke of Gloucester. George Windsor, Earl of St Andrews will be the next Duke of Kent. I fail to see why James Mountbatten-Windsor, Earl of Wessex can not be the next Duke of Edinburgh.

What is the "gain" for him not inheriting a ducal title while there are no less than 30 dukes walking around? From all these ducal peerages, only the Edinburgh one is not hereditary. I honestly fail to see any advantage, gain or "modernity" to that.

I think that is precisely the point. There are only, I believe, 24 dukedoms in the UK that are currently held by people other than members of the Royal Family. As with other hereditary peers, the "modern" approach is that the class of non-royal dukes should be a closed one, and not grow over time (only possibly shrink). Three out of the six extant royal dukedoms, namely Sussex, Gloucester and Kent, will, however, pass to non-royals (that is, individuals who are not princes) in one or two generations (assuming Archie has a son too), meaning that the class of non-royal dukes might grow by 3 (all other titles staying the same and not becoming extinct themselves, which of course is possible as there are extant non-royal dukedoms currently without heirs).

Cambridge will most likely return to the Crown when the title holder becomes King and York, by sheer luck, has no heirs. By making Edinburgh a life peerage, it is guaranteed that this new title will not add to the existing stock of non-royal dukes in the future either. Besides, Edinburgh will be available to be used in another generation by someone close to the throne (e.g. a son or maybe even a daughter of the monarch) other than staying with a family that, over time, might be removed from the reigning monarch by various degrees of kinship.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I do not get the hullabaloo about the Edinburgh Dukedom being non-hereditary. Alexander Windsor, Earl of Ulster will be the next Duke of Gloucester. George Windsor, Earl of St Andrews will be the next Duke of Kent. I fail to see why James Mountbatten-Windsor, Earl of Wessex can not be the next Duke of Edinburgh.

What is the "gain" for him not inheriting a ducal title while there are no less than 30 dukes walking around? From all these ducal peerages, only the Edinburgh one is not hereditary. I honestly fail to see any advantage, gain or "modernity" to that.

Later we will see a Duke's son surrounded by Northumberland, Montrose, Beaufort, Norfolk, Marlborough, effortlessly inherited their titles and oh yes... no, James, no... "we are modernized, you can not inherit your father's dukedom. And yes, your cousin Archie will be a Duke. You will not become a Duke. We are Modern now, you see?"

Thinking about my own post.

Maybe King Charles III will, in due time, confer a hereditary Dukedom on his nephew James, which will be hereditary? Maybe the aim is to keep Edinburgh as a special dukedom, only to be used by the most senior royals with a close bond to the Sovereign.

Otherwise there really is a discrimination in an American cousin living in California becoming the Duke of Sussex while James, with parents more than loy to the Crown, can not inherit. It is extremely strange and all he hurrah about it is beyond my understanding.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I think that is precisely the point. There are only, I believe, 24 dukedoms in the UK that are currently held by people other than members of the Royal Family. As with other hereditary peers, the "modern" approach is that the class of non-royal dukes should be a closed one, and not grow over time (only possibly shrink). Three out of the six extant royal dukedoms, namely Sussex, Gloucester and Kent, will, however, pass to non-royals (that is, individuals who are not princes) in one or two generations, meaning that the class of non-royal dukes will grow by 3 (all other titles staying the same and not becoming extinct themselves, which of course is possible as there are extant non-royal dukedoms currently without heirs).

Cambridge will most likely return to the Crown when the title holder becomes King and York, by sheer luck, has no heirs. By making Edinburgh a life peerage, it is guaranteed that this new title will not add to the existing stock of non-royal dukes in the future either. Besides, Edinburgh will be available to be used in another generation by someone close to the throne (e.g. a son or maybe even a daughter of the monarch) other than staying with a family that, over time, might be removed from the reigning monarch by various degrees of kinship.

I am not convinced. The number of Dukes will go down as York, Cambridge, Westminster will revert to the Crown in a foreseeable future. And generation after generation sees extinctions. In Queen Elizabeth's reign we saw several Dukedoms as those of York (merged with the Crown), of Portland, of Leeds, of Newcastle-under-Lyme, of Windsor, of Edinburgh (merged with the Crown) becoming extinct indeed.

 

[Mirabel]

I do not get the hullabaloo about the Edinburgh Dukedom being non-hereditary. Alexander Windsor, Earl of Ulster will be the next Duke of Gloucester. George Windsor, Earl of St Andrews will be the next Duke of Kent. I fail to see why James Mountbatten-Windsor, Earl of Wessex can not be the next Duke of Edinburgh.

What is the "gain" for him not inheriting a ducal title while there are no less than 30 dukes walking around? From all these ducal peerages, only the Edinburgh one is not hereditary. I honestly fail to see any advantage, gain or "modernity" to that.

I don't see the advantage either.
If James is to inherit the title of earl, why not that of duke?

 

[Denville]

I don't see the advantage either.
If James is to inherit the title of earl, why not that of duke?

It is quite obvious. Charles clealry has issues and reservations about that title, he does not want it to pass out of the RF/he is wary because its a high Scottish titlle. Edward worked as a royal with the title of earl for 20 years, if James wants to work as a royal, he can do the same. if he does not, odds are he would rather be an earl than a duke.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

It is quite obvious. Charles clealry has issues and reservations about that title, he does not want it to pass out of the RF/he is wary because its a high Scottish titlle. Edward worked as a royal with the title of earl for 20 years, if James wants to work as a royal, he can do the same. if he does not, odds are he would rather be an earl than a duke.

Since when is a ducal title reserved for "working royals" when Alexander Windsor, George Windsor and Archie Mountbatten-Windsor will become Duke of Gloucester, Duke of Kent respectively Duke of Sussex?

And what to think about the discrimination of a Sovereign's grandson, Archie, being a heir to a ducal peerage and another Sovereign's grandson, James, is not?

 

[Denville]

Because Charles wants to cut down on hte number of Dukes, nad particuarly I think he wants to hold onto Edinburgh. possbily he will decide if Louis gets a dukedome when he marries, to only make it a life peerage.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Because Charles wants to cut down on hte number of Dukes, nad particuarly I think he wants to hold onto Edinburgh. possbily he will decide if Louis gets a dukedome when he marries, to only make it a life peerage.

That is an aasumption. We simply do not know. And what is the point of withholding a dukedom to James when he will become hereditary Earl of Wessex and Forfar, Viscount Severn anyway? It is hard to see any logic to this.

 

[Denville]

That is an aasumption. We simply do not know. And what is the point of withholding a dukedom to James when he will become hereditary Earl of Wessex and Forfar, Viscount Severn anyway? It is hard to see any logic to this.

Im not going to argue. I think its obvious that Charles had reasons for delaying the gift of that dukedom to his brother. he may want to keep it in the RF, or he may feel that it is better not to give a senior title like that to a member of the RF as Scotland may well leave the UK in years to come. May be a bit of both, but he had promised the titel to Edward So he gave Ed the title, but restricted it for life. I think he may do that for other titles for his grandsons. Charles cannot take away the titles that James will inherit, any more than he can take away the titles that his cousins will inherit. but a dukedom is a big title and clearly IMO Charles does not want to add any more to the tally.

 

[Mbruno]

That is an aasumption. We simply do not know. And what is the point of withholding a dukedom to James when he will become hereditary Earl of Wessex and Forfar, Viscount Severn anyway? It is hard to see any logic to this.

Maybe the difference is that there are 190 earls (not counting subsidiary titles), so another earldom outside the Royal Family won't make much difference. By contrast, as I argued before, there are only 24 non-royal dukedoms , so adding another one or 4, if you also include Sussex, Gloucester, and Kent, has a much bigger impact on the existing stock of dukes.

Besides, as others have said, Edinburgh may be considered a title of special significance which the RF might want to keep for people close to the monarch only. James may be William's first cousin and Charles' nephew, but James' son's son (assuming they will exist) will be only a third cousin to George's heir.

Of course, the same arguments could be made for the Gloucester and Kent titles, but there is nothing the King can do about them or the Sussex title; only Parliament could now take away those titles or change their remainders, and that would be a very unusual move.

 

[Mirabel]

Yes, but no money or property accompanies the title.
So, why would a ducal title have more of an impact?
It's really just a name, right?

 

[Denville]

Yes, but no money or property accompanies the title.
So, why would a ducal title have more of an impact?
It's really just a name, right?

It is a connection with Philip, and one of the highest ranks in the land, and its holder is a wealthy man and a member of the RF. Im sorry but I think its obvious that like virtually ALL European monarchies, the British RF is cutting back on grandeur, titles and too much conspicuous spending. There are only 24 Dukes and a few Royal dukes and Charles wants to keep it like that and slim it down a bit more. It is the same in all European royal houses, in some, they are taking away titles from members of the family who have had them all their lives, so why is giving Edward a title just for life wrong? It is not much different to 1917 when George V put a control/limit on the use of hte title Prince, stating that only the grandchildren of the monarch, in the male line, could hold the title Prince.
Charles cannot stop James being Earl of Wessex and Forfar in due course, nor can he stop his cousins Alexander and George from inheriting their fahter's titles, because of hte way the titles were set up. But going on from now, he can decide NOT to give hereditary titles to any new people.