Edinburgh and Wessex Titles

[Meee]

Edward being an Earl probably also appealed at the time as they did not wish any children they might have to be styled HRH - Lady and Viscount/Lord are the natural stylings for the children of an Earl, so in that sense they are as would be expected.

I agree with Somebody, there is a big difference between the sons of monarchs having Dukedoms and the grandsons having them too, the latter case being where slimming down arguments tend to be made. You have to treat a generation fairly which was why I thought Charles would go for a grantee only approach with Edward, striking a balance between keeping his promise and slimming down/modernisation and DoE is then available for his descendants if that is what William wants to do. That way none of Elizabeth II’s sons would pass on a Dukedom (but then the odd one out would be Harry, a generation on but gets to pass on a Dukedom while his uncle cannot.) Kent and Gloucester go on but of course they are the generation above Edward (and created for the generation before that,) that was the way it was then and the generation is equal.

It’s easy to be for slimming down when it isn’t at the expense of your descendants, I suppose.

 

[HenRach Dominion]

It seems like The Duke of Edinburgh title for HRH The Earl of Wessex and Forfar was always going to be up in the air because the two biggest champions for it literally had to die in order for the possibility to come out, and there's no way either of them could have fought for HRH The Earl of Wessex's cause beyond the grave.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The initial announcement did say that Charles was in agreement so it is clear that he was on board to being with. The fact that such a public announcement was made that has his name attached is now showing him in a bad light as it now seems he is backtracking, again, on an announcement made by BP.

 

[Prinsara]

It seems like The Duke of Edinburgh title for HRH The Earl of Wessex and Forfar was always going to be up in the air because the two biggest champions for it literally had to die in order for the possibility to come out, and there's no way either of them could have fought for HRH The Earl of Wessex's cause beyond the grave.

I'm pretty sure if Philip had known it was going to turn out this unpromisingly there would be a video lying around somewhere saying "Give him the bloody title, boy!!" At full volume.

 

[Saragli]

I'm pretty sure if Philip had known it was going to turn out this unpromisingly there would be a video lying around somewhere saying "Give him the bloody title, boy!!" At full volume.

Edward is already on record backtracking about the DoE title while Philip was still alive.

 

[Prinsara]

Edward is already on record backtracking about the DoE title while Philip was still alive.

That doesn't mean it was Philip's decision.

 

[bekalc]

Edward being an Earl probably also appealed at the time as they did not wish any children they might have to be styled HRH - Lady and Viscount/Lord are the natural stylings for the children of an Earl, so in that sense they are as would be expected.

I agree with Somebody, there is a big difference between the sons of monarchs having Dukedoms and the grandsons having them too, the latter case being where slimming down arguments tend to be made. You have to treat a generation fairly which was why I thought Charles would go for a grantee only approach with Edward, striking a balance between keeping his promise and slimming down/modernisation and DoE is then available for his descendants if that is what William wants to do. That way none of Elizabeth II’s sons would pass on a Dukedom (but then the odd one out would be Harry, a generation on but gets to pass on a Dukedom while his uncle cannot.) Kent and Gloucester go on but of course they are the generation above Edward (and created for the generation before that,) that was the way it was then and the generation is equal.

It’s easy to be for slimming down when it isn’t at the expense of your descendants, I suppose.

I don’t understand why a Dukedom is a big deal. I mean you have other dukes who aren’t tied to the crown.

It seems befitting that the Monarchs other descendants should be able to pass down something.

His or Her Grace styling isn’t the same as HRH

 

[bekalc]

Yeah, I knew all that about Edward. My road was the one of Edward saying to HM, Oh Mummy, Mummy, I want to be Wessex. It probably didn't happen that way, but if it did, immature -- no?

Why not? Especially when at the same time Edward was playing ball and agreeing his kids should not be called Prince and Princess?

Unlike his brother and nephew. He is not throwing fits now about the title.

So Edward wasn’t cut out for the military. It can be mature to know oneself and to have the courage to recognize it and not waste others time.

Edward certainly approached marriage more maturely than his siblings.

Or at the least had the good sense to learn from their mistakes.

 

[Sunnystar]

Honestly, even if Charles does withhold the DoE title from Edward, there is the possibility that William could choose to honor his grandparents' request once he becomes King, if the DoE title hasn't gone to one of his own kids by then.

As it is, we're not even three months beyond the passing of Elizabeth. Maybe Charles is waiting until Edward's birthday in March to give him the DoE title. That would be a nice way to mark the 6 month passing of their mother.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Why not? Especially when at the same time Edward was playing ball and agreeing his kids should not be called Prince and Princess?

Unlike his brother and nephew.

Please remember that Andrew never threw a 'hissy fit' to demand titles for his daughters. No one questioned their rights to be Princesses and a lot was made of the two little York princesses to go with the Wales princes. A lot was even made of the fact that Beatrice, like Elizabeth herself, was born to the second son and was, like Elizabeth had been at birth - a princess 'of York'.

It wasn't until after the Morton book and the vitriole of the war of the Wales' that sentiment changed and questions asked about who should or shouldn't be royal.

Even so the late Queen INCREASED the number of those eligible in 2012.

Edward married after the events of the 90s and the turning on the royal family by the media and public that happened in that decade. 1999 was a very different Britain to 1988 when Beatrice was born and 1986 when Andrew married. No one expected anything other than the huge wedding Andrew had but by 1999 that was seen as excessive for a mere younger son. Andrew's was the last of the great weddings for anyone other than the direct heir. In the 60s Margaret and Alexandra had weddings with all the bells and whistles in London while The Duke of Kent had York Minster.

 

[Meee]

Indeed, Andrew did not throw a hissy fit for or demand titles for his daughters. He and Sarah simply decided to use the titles laid out for them under the LPs in force. He did have expectations as regards to a royal role and security for them, which some found unreasonable, although that isn’t a hissy fit as such. In fairness to him, when they were younger they were expected to have such a role, being the closest blood princesses to the throne. Princess Alexandra had become a working royal as it was felt there weren’t enough females. There’s nothing wrong with wanting what you were promised (although I cannot recall a statement to that effect as there was for Edward and the Dukedom of Edinburgh.)

Nevertheless, I see Edward as more of a realist than his brother and nephew. He knew there wouldn’t be a working royal future for his children and accepted it. Perhaps that’s a possible personality trait of someone whose own position was elevated by a system that was essentially sexist. His children wouldn’t be, but neither were his elder sister’s so that’s only fair sort of thing. He likely thought also of the long term - what would minor working royals do when more senior ones were ready to take over? There isn’t a public appetite for numbers to increase so as for everyone to be kept until they retire. A minor working royal would now be a placeholder only.

Edward may get the title on his birthday, but I simply thought that their parents’ anniversary was more likely, as it was 75 years this year and the wish of both. Edward is 59 next year so if anything March 2024 would be more likely (more of a landmark birthday.) I cannot see it being done just before the Coronation.

 

[Carin]

Indeed,

N
Edward may get the title on his birthday, but I simply thought that their parents’ anniversary was more likely, as it was 75 years this year and the wish of both. Edward is 59 next year so if anything March 2024 would be more likely (more of a landmark birthday.) I cannot see it being done just before the Coronation.

There are plenty of special opportunities for Charles to give Edward his ducal title. Christmas, Birthday Coronation. Charles may decide to do as the Swedes do. Make it a lifetime title not an inherited one. If some respects King Charles has had a lot on his plate, Adjusting to the role of Kingship, planning a coronation, coping with Sussex mess and mourning his mother. I know from sad experience, that many things are very difficult to cope with when one is mourning a very special loved.

 

[Denville]

As far as I know a life peerage can only be a barony. I think that Charles has a lot of stuff to deal with this year, with the coronation to plan for, and he may have perfectly good reasons not to proceed with giving the DUkedom of Edinburgh to Edward. But its early day to accuse him of all sorts because he has not done it yet.

 

[bekalc]

Yes who knows about Andrew and his daughters I am actually not talking about the wedding but more the fact that Edward took his time before marrying someone.

And definitely made the best first marriage choice of all of his siblings.

Now it may be he learned from example of what not to do. But he clearly took the idea of making sure his spouse understood the role and can handle it. And I think William learned from that


Marriage isn’t a wedding. I don’t think it’s fair to take one decision and say someone is immature.

 

[kimebear]

Many people have wondered why The late Queen didn't create Edward as DoE after Philip died and the answer is she couldn't as Charles inherited the title from his father, just as he inherited the Crown from his mother.

Which is exactly why I think it's shameful the way Charles is ignoring the request of both of his parents by not re-creating the title for Edward as was planned.

After several years of faithful service to the crown, Edward and Sophie have more than earned the elevation. Edward is already a titled working royal. Bestowing the Duke of Edinburgh title on him, especially as he has been so active with the title's patronage already, would offend no one.

If Scotland were to leave the UK, then a different title could be created for Edward. Until that happens, it's a poor excuse to deny him.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Edward is already on record backtracking about the DoE title while Philip was still alive.

Can you elaborate? As far as I'm aware, his recent interviews on the subject were all conducted after his father's death.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...-but-his-brother-is-not-on-his-side-77v25z3b0
https://archive.ph/0XuTJ

Edward is thought to be aware that his hope of becoming the next Duke of Edinburgh is not a done deal. In an interview with the BBC last month to mark what would have been Philip’s 100th birthday, he was asked: “You will be the next Duke of Edinburgh, when the Prince of Wales becomes king, that is quite something to take on?”

Edward replied: “It was fine in theory, ages ago when it was sort of a pipe dream of my father’s . . . and of course it will depend on whether or not the Prince of Wales, when he becomes king, whether he’ll do that, so we’ll wait and see. So yes, it will be quite a challenge taking that on.”​

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-f...matter-earl-countess-wessex-grieving-grandpa/

The Countess recalls the time when, two days after their engagement, Prince Philip popped round to ask his youngest (and, some say, favourite) son if he would be willing to become the next Duke of Edinburgh. ‘We sat there slightly stunned. He literally came straight in and said: “Right. I’d like it very much if you would consider that.”’

The Earl is almost apologetic as he admits that ‘theoretically’ the title should go to the Duke of York. ‘It’s a very bittersweet role to take on because the only way the title can come to me is after both my parents have actually passed away,’ he explains. ‘It has to go back to the Crown first. ‘My father was very keen that the title should continue, but he didn’t quite move quickly enough with Andrew, so it was us who he eventually had the conversation with. It was a lovely idea; a lovely thought.’
​

And once more, the 1999 agreement:

https://web.archive.org/web/2014020...ews/title_of_hrh_the_prince_edward/40309.html

The Queen, The Duke of Edinburgh and The Prince of Wales have also agreed that The Prince Edward should be given the Dukedom of Edinburgh in due course, when the present title now held by Prince Philip eventually reverts to the Crown.​

As far as I know a life peerage can only be a barony.

I interpret it differently, for the reasons mentioned earlier: https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f114/wessex-titles-32557-post2509886.html#post2509886

However, it is true that all life peerages created within the past several centuries have been baronies.

Edward being an Earl probably also appealed at the time as they did not wish any children they might have to be styled HRH - Lady and Viscount/Lord are the natural stylings for the children of an Earl, so in that sense they are as would be expected.

If Prince Edward had been created a Duke on marriage, his non-HRH daughter would still have been styled as Lady Louise, and his non-HRH son could still have been given a viscomital courtesy style, though I don't see a major difference between being a courtesy Earl and being a courtesy Viscount.

And which other monarchies previously gave out dukedoms to younger children/sons of monarch but have recently stopped doing so?

I agree with your general point, but Belgium did stop bestowing personal titles (not necessarily ducal) on younger sons of monarchs upon the accession of Albert II to the throne in 1993, when his younger son Prince Laurent did not receive one.

> Whilst it may have indeed been intended for Edward to be created DoE after the passing of both of his parents, the decision to do so remains that of the monarch of the day. As King, it is the duty of Charles to do what is best for the monarchy, and if he feels creating a royal dukedom for his younger brother, then his judgement is all that matters in this regard. QE2 would not flinch from putting the Crown first, Charles must do the same.

> Philip may have wanted the title to go to Edward, but it was never Philip's decision to make. It was never within his gift to create Dukedoms.

I don't think anyone has disputed that it is legal for the King to break his agreement with his parents, but that is not incompatible with others coming to their own judgments on his actions.

 

[lucien]

I dont get the impression that Edward is enthusiastic... saying It was fine in theory... Or possibly he knows that Charles may not want to give it or may be feeling that it is a political problem, if he does give it. so he is not saying anything very strong.. just "we'll have to wait and see".

With part of the Scots hoping for independence,it might be wiser to wait a tad.
Not that I wish them any luck,sorry.

 

[sophie25]

With part of the Scots hoping for independence,it might be wiser to wait a tad.
Not that I wish them any luck,sorry.

I live in Scotland and I can assure anyone who is interested that making Edward Duke of Edinburgh or not will have no influence at all on how people vote.

 

[HenRach Dominion]

It seems like a lot of the workings of the BRF are duty for duty's sake. Even if HRH The Earl of Wessex has been a faithful working member of the firm for more than 20 years, that's the expectation rather than anything noteworthy, and certainly not a reason to "gift" him the title of the Duke of Edinburgh. Hell, because of HRH The Earl of Wessex's quiet and steadfast demeanor, it would easy for HM The King to ignore his parents' request because the former is going to quietly do his duty regardless. It does, however, set up the dichotomy of those who forgo duty being scorned and those who follow it being unrewarded.

 

[Alisa]

Which is exactly why I think it's shameful the way Charles is ignoring the request of both of his parents by not re-creating the title for Edward as was planned.

After several years of faithful service to the crown, Edward and Sophie have more than earned the elevation. Edward is already a titled working royal. Bestowing the Duke of Edinburgh title on him, especially as he has been so active with the title's patronage already, would offend no one.

If Scotland were to leave the UK, then a different title could be created for Edward. Until that happens, it's a poor excuse to deny him.

Well said!

Charles and Camilla were humbled, gratefdul, and elated when the late Queen verbalized her wishes for Camilla to be known as Queen Consort. It is only fair then Charles honors the wishes of his mother for the DoE title to go Edward!

 

[Blog Real]

I also think it's time to honor your parents' wish, and give the title of Duke of Edinburgh to Prince Edward.
The announcement could be made in the Christmas message, I think that would look good.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...aving-Edinburgh-title-Princess-Charlotte.html

I wish there would be a short statement from the Palace, making it clear whether Edward will be getting the Edinburgh title or not. All this speculation is getting ridiculous.

Oddly enough, while Buckingham Palace "declined to comment" on the original Daily Mail story, they did comment on it very briefly once the Telegraph reported on the Daily Mail's story: "A Buckingham Palace spokesman said no decision had been made."

As others have mentioned, the claim that "no decision had been made" seems to be inconsistent with the fact that a decision between Elizabeth, Philip, and Charles was announced in 1999.

 

[Claire]

I think the decision of the DOE Awards to not make Edward patron speaks for itself - he will remain as president.
I suggestion has been made for Charles or William to be approached.

 

[Duke of Leaside]

I believe HM The King will create The Prince Edward as Duke of Edinburgh this year - either for Edward's birthday on March 10th or just before the coronation on May 6th.

I don't see any downside to keeping the agreement that was made when Edward and Sophie married. It's low-hanging fruit and an easy win for The King. To not do it would provoke a large negative reaction and I don't think that should be (unnecessarily) induced.

I also happen to believe Edward deserves it and Sophie will make a fine Duchess of Edinburgh - the first to use that title since Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II before her accession.

 

[JSH]

Totally agree.

 

[ada]

I hope so, I am looking forward to that day

 

[Archduchess Zelia]

I believe HM The King will create The Prince Edward as Duke of Edinburgh this year - either for Edward's birthday on March 10th or just before the coronation on May 6th.

I don't see any downside to keeping the agreement that was made when Edward and Sophie married. It's low-hanging fruit and an easy win for The King. To not do it would provoke a large negative reaction and I don't think that should be (unnecessarily) induced.

I also happen to believe Edward deserves it and Sophie will make a fine Duchess of Edinburgh - the first to use that title since Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II before her accession.

No disrespect but I don't think the vast majority of Brits give a hoot about whether or not Edward gets to add another title to his name, so I doubt there'd be some grand kerfuffle if he doesn't.

 

[Iluvbertie]

No disrespect but I don't think the vast majority of Brits give a hoot about whether or not Edward gets to add another title to his name, so I doubt there'd be some grand kerfuffle if he doesn't.

It isn't so much about Edward getting another title but further proof that the King can't keep a promise and that isn't something he should be encouraging just before he takes the coronation oath as it will simply show that he won't be taking that oath seriously anyway.

 

[Denville]

It isn't so much about Edward getting another title but further proof that the King can't keep a promise and that isn't something he should be encouraging just before he takes the coronation oath as it will simply show that he won't be taking that oath seriously anyway.

There may very well be good reasons why Charles feels he cannot go along with his original promise to the queen and Phillip. Edward himself does not seem all that keen on the title, and it is not a big deal. Edward has a title. In fact he has 2 earldoms....
It was a difficult situation, trying to find a way to give Philip's title to one of his sons, and I think that in 1999, the queen hoped she had found a way of doing it. But having to rely on something happening many years in the future, and depending on other people carrying it out, is not always going to work. A lot has changed in 20 years and I dont know if Edward himself wants the title all that badly. Charles may well be wary of giving him a senior royal dukedom, in case of the Scots wanting independence or he may want to keep his fahter's title for one of his own grandsons.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

If King Charles gave the title of Duke of Edinburgh for Edward's birthday on March 10th, that would make an excellent present.