Titles of the Edinburgh Children

[Osipi]

I don't see Charles going against his parents wishes and intentions in wanting Edward created the Duke of Edinburgh when Charles becomes King. One important factor in this is that it is Edward and Sophie that are continuing to support The Duke of Edinburgh Award Scheme.

Of course it is within the monarch's prerogative to *not* create Edward as the Duke of Edinburgh but I don't see that happening at all. Edward would really have to do something dire and awful and beyond the scope of what Andrew is now facing for Charles to back out.

 

[Denville]

Just my opinion - Prince Edward may not get the Duke of Edinburgh from King Charles, and that's why HM gave him another Earldom of Forfar. The next Duke of Edinburgh may well be Prince Louis, to be recreated by King William.

the queen has stated that it is agreed that Edward will become Duke in due course...why would that not be the case? Clealry the queen wants her husband's title to go to one of his sons.. and that is the way they have arranged it..

 

[Somebody]

Just my opinion - Prince Edward may not get the Duke of Edinburgh from King Charles, and that's why HM gave him another Earldom of Forfar. The next Duke of Edinburgh may well be Prince Louis, to be recreated by King William.

What do you mean by 'another Earldom of Forfar'?

And why would Charles not honour the wish of his parents that his younger brother receive the Duke of Edinburgh peerage? Had the queen given him a dukedom at his marriage, he probably would have had Earl of Wessex and Viscount Severn as his subsidiary titles (depending on the dukedom as she tries to spread it out over 3 out of 4 countries within the UK; so if he had been given a dukedom from England, his earldom would most likely be Scottish - as the Dukedom of Edinburgh, is Scottish, he received an English earldom).

William imho has two more likely options to give to Louis: Duke of York (if available; but hopefully Andrew is still alive when Louis marries) or Duke of Cambridge. It seems more likely that he'd like his younger son to have the Dukedom he himself held than the one his grandfather held.

 

[Denville]

Theoretically they could make her Duchess of Edinburgh in her own right but I don't see that happening. If they would want to preserve the title within Philip's direct family, it would be more logical to make James the new Duke of Edinburgh (but even that I would doubt) - because that seems to be the main purpose.

why would they do that? Daughters in law are not made peeresses in their own right..

 

[Mbruno]

Just my opinion - Prince Edward may not get the Duke of Edinburgh from King Charles, and that's why HM gave him another Earldom of Forfar. The next Duke of Edinburgh may well be Prince Louis, to be recreated by King William.

When Prince Edward was created Earl of Wessex (instead of being created a duke as usual for a sovereign's son), the implicit understanding was that he would become Duke of Edinburgh when the title reverted to the Crown. That was the will of both the Queen and Prince Philip at the time and I don't think Charles would go against it after they are deceased. It would be quite frankly disrespectful to his parents to do so.


Prince Louis can be given his father's title of Duke of Cambridge. William most likely will be already King by the time Louis gets married and the title, having merged into the Crown, will be available to be recreated for him.

 

[Somebody]

why would they do that? Daughters in law are not made peeresses in their own right..

Exactly. That's why I said that I don't see it happening.

However, in the scenario under discussion, the wish for the Edinburgh title to be passed on in Philip's direct line could no longer be fulfilled in the intended way (by creating Edward duke of Edinburgh), so, if they would want to still make sure it worked out somehow, the two available options (imo) would be to either make Sophie duchess of Edinburgh (most unlikely) or make James Duke of Edinburgh (not that likely either - as that 'right' is normally reserved for children not grandchildren of the monarch (outside of the direct line) - but more likely than creating his mother Duchess in her own right).

 

[Fijiro]

Prince Charles is the heir apparent to The Duchy of Edinburgh as the eldest son of the Duke of Edinburgh. If, as has been reported by several posters up-thread, HM and The DoE want Prince Edward to be created DoE, then I'm sure Charles will honour them when he is King.

 

[Denville]

Exactly. That's why I said that I don't see it happening.

However, in the scenario under discussion, the wish for the Edinburgh title to be passed on in Philip's direct line could no longer be fulfilled in the intended way (by creating Edward duke of Edinburgh), so, if they would want to still make sure it worked out somehow, the two available options (imo) would be to either make Sophie duchess of Edinburgh (most unlikely) or make James Duke of Edinburgh (not that likely either - as that 'right' is normally reserved for children not grandchildren of the monarch (outside of the direct line) - but more likely than creating his mother Duchess in her own right).

If Edward becomes DUke.. then James wil become Duke some day. So if Edward were to go before his brother, the odds are that Charles would feel it was his duty to pass the title to Ed's son.. so that PHilip's title was still with one of his direct descedants…
I know you didn't say that about the idea of Sophie becoming Duchess but I can't imagine why anyone would think it was at all likely to happen.

 

[Fijiro]

Right now, from the 1st in line (Charles) to the 20th in line (Lena) are all Prince Philip's direct descendants. Of course there are those of them who are not entitled to titles.

 

[Somebody]

Prince Charles is the heir apparent to The Duchy of Edinburgh as the eldest son of the Duke of Edinburgh. If, as has been reported by several posters up-thread, HM and The DoE want Prince Edward to be created DoE, then I'm sure Charles will honour them when he is King.

Glad to hear that. So, it seems now we are all in agreement that in all likelihood Edward will be created Duke of Edinburgh once both his parents' passed away - as until that moment either his father or his eldest brother will be the Duke of Edinburgh.

And the scenario in which the title wouldn't merge with the crown requires way too many early deaths (in short: Charlotte would need to become queen right after queen Elizabeth - in that case the duke of Edinburgh title would pass on to Louis), so best to assume it indeed will become available.

 

[Somebody]

Right now, from the 1st in line (Charles) to the 20th in line (Lena) are all Prince Philip's direct descendants. Of course there are those of them who are not entitled to titles.

Indeed, few of those are male male-line descendants without a ducal title of their own (Charles, Andrew, William and Harry) - or first in line to inherit one (George and Archie):
- first generation: Edward
- second generation: James
- third generation: Louis

 

[Iluvbertie]

Everything was put in place long ago - with good reason. I am honest glad that Edward and Sophie made the decision years ago.
I was recently asked if Sophie can inherit the title of Duchess of Edinburgh if Edward passes before Princess Charles becomes king. Any thoughts?

No.

Edward can only inherit the title IF all the men in the line of succession to that title die before Philip i.e. Charles, William, George, Louis, Harry, Archie and Andrew.

The intention is that when both The Queen AND Philip have died that Charles, as the new King and as Philip's heir apparent, will recreate the Edinburgh title for Edward.

Before Charles becomes King no one else can inherit the Edinburgh title. If Philip dies before the Queen then Charles will inherit the Edinburgh title. If Charles also dies before The Queen then William will inherit the Edinburgh title - and it would take precedence over Cambridge as the older title.

Sophie can't inherit any title as she isn't in the line of succession to any title. Her children are in the line of succession to the Crown and James to Edinburgh - after his father, Merioneth again after his father, Greenwich - again after Edward and of course Wessex, Forfar and Severn. In all likelihood Merioneth and Greenwich will merge with the Crown when Charles inherits Edinburgh and becomes King and they won't be recreated for Edward.

I can see Charles, in the situation where Edward died before Philip, honouring the intention of the 1999 declaration and so in time creating James Duke of Edinburgh to ensure that his father's title goes to a male line descendant of his father and the line his father wanted to have that title.

 

[Kataryn]

Thanks! I think I can now apprehend your point of view (namely, you were saying that Queen Elizabeth's letters patent in 2012 made a general rule for children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales, but left it to future monarchs to sort out the situation of children of the heiress apparent of the Prince of Wales, or children of the heir/heiress apparent of the heiress apparent, if and when one of these situations arise).

However, I would say that the letters patent of 2012 also made/confirmed the "general rule" that children of an heiress apparent of the Prince of Wales (or children of the heir/heiress apparent of the heiress apparent) will not be Prince/Princess. Even if the 2012 LPs do not explicitly declare it, the fact remains that they were not made eligible under the 2012 LPs and therefore, under the existing framework of the letters patent of 1917, they are ineligible to be Prince/Princess.

A future monarch could certainly issue new letters patent to change this, but a future monarch could also issue new letters patent to change the rule for the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. As such, I cannot see a reason why only one of these rules should be seen as a general rule. If the fact that children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales will be Prince/Princess for the time being is a general rule, then (in my opinion) the fact that children of an heiress apparent will not be Prince/Princess for the time being is also a general rule.






I agree with your second part; limiting the letters patent to the Cambridge children would not have achieved that. But it would at least have avoided the making of a different general rule for children of an heiress apparent than for children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales.

It is also worth mentioning that under the letters patent, the general rule for children of eldest sons applies even when the eldest son of the Prince of Wales is not his heir apparent. Had Charlotte been born first, George would have ceased to be in the direct line of succession in 2015 when the Succession to the Crown Act came into effect, but under the current rules, his children would still be Prince/ss from birth, even if born in Charles' lifetime (while Charlotte's children would become Prince/ss only when their mother became Queen).

IMHO you start at this from the wrong end. The LPs make laws so that an existing situation is adapted to how it should be. Not the other way round. If they dont fit anymore they are changed. So if George would have a girl first, she would be the heiress apparent. Her children of course would be HRH Prince/Princess. There is no way the children of the heiress apparent would be Mr/Miss fathers name while the children of a younger brother of said heiress would be prince/princess. That is simply unthinkable, thus it will not happen, LP or not. The RF may be old-fashioned but not that much!

 

[Mbruno]

IMHO you start at this from the wrong end. The LPs make laws so that an existing situation is adapted to how it should be. Not the other way round. If they dont fit anymore they are changed. So if George would have a girl first, she would be the heiress apparent. Her children of course would be HRH Prince/Princess. There is no way the children of the heiress apparent would be Mr/Miss fathers name while the children of a younger brother of said heiress would be prince/princess. That is simply unthinkable, thus it will not happen, LP or not. The RF may be old-fashioned but not that much!

Indeed. George VI himself issued LPs to make Princess Elizabeth’s children HRH princes/princesses because she was the heiress.

What Tatiana Maria is trying to say, I guess, is that the King could be proactive and issue new LPs of general application (unlike George VI’s) to adjust to the new gender neutral succession laws.

The British RF , however, seems to be more reactive then proactive and both Charles and William might feel there is no need to deal with that issue until it comes up in a concrete situation.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

Just my opinion - Prince Edward may not get the Duke of Edinburgh from King Charles, and that's why HM gave him another Earldom of Forfar. The next Duke of Edinburgh may well be Prince Louis, to be recreated by King William.

"Hours before the ceremony, their mother granted the couple new titles. Edward will be known as the Earl of Wessex and Viscount Severn, and will inherit his father's title, Duke of Edinburgh, Buckingham Palace announced Saturday."

CNN - Britain's Prince Edward, Sophie Rhys-Jones marry as royals look on - June 19, 1999

I believe Edward will eventually be Duke of Edinburgh, as that was his parents' intention announced at the time of his wedding.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

What Tatiana Maria is trying to say, I guess, is that the King could be proactive and issue new LPs of general application (unlike George VI’s) to adjust to the new gender neutral succession laws.

Not quite. ? I will try to explain what I was saying in the general titles thread. http://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...sh-styles-and-titles-258-233.html#post2274874

 

[Carin]

Prince Louis can be given his father's title of Duke of Cambridge. William most likely will be already King by the time Louis gets married and the title, having merged into the Crown, will be available to be recreated for him.

I think that Prince Louis will be the next Duke of York, the title usually reserved
for the second son of the monarch. Prince Andrew is now about 60. By the time Louis is comtemplating marriage, around the age of 30, Andrew would be 90 (if still alive, but the title may have merged back to the crown by then.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The Duke of York title isn't 'reserved' for the second son. It is just a quirk of fate that since the 1400s the holder of Duke of York has either died with no children or has become King. Andrew will be the first to actually have children and not become King. He may remarry of course - and have a son - who would inherit the title. It is also possible that the government may even pass legislation allowing first born daughters to inherit titles in which case Beatrice would inherit York (or the Queen may re-create all of Andrew's titles with the remainder that daughter can inherit - as Queen Victoria did for Fife).

 

[Countessmeout]

What do you mean by 'another Earldom of Forfar'?

And why would Charles not honour the wish of his parents that his younger brother receive the Duke of Edinburgh peerage? Had the queen given him a dukedom at his marriage, he probably would have had Earl of Wessex and Viscount Severn as his subsidiary titles (depending on the dukedom as she tries to spread it out over 3 out of 4 countries within the UK; so if he had been given a dukedom from England, his earldom would most likely be Scottish - as the Dukedom of Edinburgh, is Scottish, he received an English earldom).
.

Yes at the time of his wedding, Edward was not given a Scottish title. As with his brothers and nephews, a Scottish earldom would have been common path. It seems to have been done as Wessex and Severn will be subsidiary titles when Edward is DOE.

What Fijiro was referring to though is the situation is not the same. Edward has a Scottish title. His mother made him Earl of Forfar.

It was meant as a honor and I don't see it as any sign Charles won't honor the original plan. But the argument Edward has no Scottish title no longer holds as he does have one.

 

[Molly2101]

Sophie answered a question when doing an interview for The Sunday Times and she herself mentions that their children can choose to use their HRH style we 18 if they wish. I imagine her understanding of the titles is better than us and she says that they do actually have the titles, they chose to not use them but they can if they want.


“We try to bring them up with the understanding they are very likely to have to work for a living,” she adds. “Hence we made the decision not to use HRH titles. They have them and can decide to use them from 18, but I think it’s highly unlikely.” The Countess of Wessex

 

[Denville]

Sophie answered a question when doing an interview for The Sunday Times and she herself mentions that their children can choose to use their HRH style we 18 if they wish. I imagine her understanding of the titles is better than us and she says that they do actually have the titles, they chose to not use them but they can if they want.


“We try to bring them up with the understanding they are very likely to have to work for a living,” she adds. “Hence we made the decision not to use HRH titles. They have them and can decide to use them from 18, but I think it’s highly unlikely.” The Countess of Wessex

I thought that someone on this forum had written to BP to ask about this issue and was told that the childern did not have HRH....

 

[Molly2101]

I thought that someone on this forum had written to BP to ask about this issue and was told that the childern did not have HRH....

As did I but Sophie has said they do and they are her children and I’m sure she was involved in the decision. If she says they’ve got them but just aren’t using them then they must have them. She’d know more than we do surely?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Sophie answered a question when doing an interview for The Sunday Times and she herself mentions that their children can choose to use their HRH style we 18 if they wish. I imagine her understanding of the titles is better than us and she says that they do actually have the titles, they chose to not use them but they can if they want.


“We try to bring them up with the understanding they are very likely to have to work for a living,” she adds. “Hence we made the decision not to use HRH titles. They have them and can decide to use them from 18, but I think it’s highly unlikely.” The Countess of Wessex

Could you link to the interview if it is online, or provide the date or headline such that readers who subscribe to the Times can read it?

I thought that someone on this forum had written to BP to ask about this issue and was told that the childern did not have HRH....

https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...sh-styles-and-titles-258-156.html#post1984176

 

[Somebody]

Wow, that's quite a revelation.

However, I'm afraid it is quite possible that Buckingham Palace did not inform Iluvbertie correctly and that indeed because it was only 'an announcement' and no LP, Louise and James actually could claim the HRH if they would wish to do so - as male-line grandchildren.

In that case, the same would probably apply to Archie once Charles is king. He won't use a title but is entitled to do so if he wishes.

Would be interested to read the full interview as well.

 

[An Ard Ri]

Sophie answered a question when doing an interview for The Sunday Times and she herself mentions that their children can choose to use their HRH style we 18 if they wish. I imagine her understanding of the titles is better than us and she says that they do actually have the titles, they chose to not use them but they can if they want.


“We try to bring them up with the understanding they are very likely to have to work for a living,” she adds. “Hence we made the decision not to use HRH titles. They have them and can decide to use them from 18, but I think it’s highly unlikely.” The Countess of Wessex

Interesting interview I think its also highly unlikely that we'll see HRH Princess Louise of Wessex or HRH Prince James of Wessex ,though I could be wrong.

 

[Somebody]

Interesting interview I think its also highly unlikely that we'll see HRH Princess Louise of Wessex or HRH Prince James of Wessex ,though I could be wrong.

If they'd choose to use it, they might wait for the moment that their father becomes duke of Edinburgh.

 

[Denville]

Wow, that's quite a revelation.

However, I'm afraid it is quite possible that Buckingham Palace did not inform Iluvbertie correctly and that indeed because it was only 'an announcement' and no LP, Louise and James actually could claim the HRH if they would wish to do so - as male-line grandchildren.

In that case, the same would probably apply to Archie once Charles is king. He won't use a title but is entitled to do so if he wishes.

Would be interested to read the full interview as well.

It seems odd htat BP would get it wrong, in a formal reply to someone....

 

[An Ard Ri]

If they'd choose to use it, they might wait for the moment that their father becomes duke of Edinburgh.

That's a possibility,hadn't thought of that.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

However, I'm afraid it is quite possible that Buckingham Palace did not inform Iluvbertie correctly and that indeed because it was only 'an announcement' and no LP, Louise and James actually could claim the HRH if they would wish to do so - as male-line grandchildren.

Or the palace could have reversed its position (as it has done before in relation to title issues), depending on when the interview was given (apparently not recently, since I have seen mentions of such an interview from the Countess of Wessex on blogs/social media before, although the person(s) mentioning it did not provide a date or a link).

As did I but Sophie has said they do and they are her children and I’m sure she was involved in the decision. If she says they’ve got them but just aren’t using them then they must have them. She’d know more than we do surely?

Yes, provided that the interview was accurately quoted, I would consider the Countess of Wessex, as someone directly involved, to be more knowledgeable than a Buckingham Palace employee.
Would you mind clarifying whether you are quoting directly from the Times or are quoting another source who is citing the Times as their source?

 

[Somebody]

It seems odd htat BP would get it wrong, in a formal reply to someone....

Odd but not impossible. They messed up with the duke and duchess of Sussex' titles; they messed up with the line of succession on the website (they had the children of lord and lady Nicholas Windsor behind those of his elder sister; they cleaned it up - so the one that is shown on the website only includes all children and grandchildren of the queen, except for Zara's daughters - which in itself makes no sense either), they are confused about Eugenie's title (in the line of succession it is still 'princess Eugenie of York' but they no longer use that for her official activities in the CC but use 'Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank' instead).

So, I am sure it was the understanding of the person who wrote the reply that this was the correct answer but apparently the royal who was involved in this decision has a different interpretation.