Edinburgh and Wessex Titles

[Tatiana Maria]

The strangest part of this story is not that the King is breaking a promise, but that he is breaking a promise for no discernible reason. The leakers' explanation that not granting Prince Edward a dukedom will somehow slim down the monarchy simply does not hold water, for reasons which we have already gone over repeatedly in this thread.

So we may assume the true reason has not been revealed to the public. But I fail to see what it could be. There is no public pressure against Edward receiving the dukedom, since the public simply does not care. And before anyone repeats the arguments for ending conferrals of royal peerages / hereditary peerages / peerages with Scottish territorial designations – while your concerns may be valid, the royal family and the public obviously do not care, as the royal family chose to confer hereditary peerages with Scottish territorial designations on Prince Harry and Prince Edward as late as 2018 and 2019 and the general public remained indifferent.

I can only guess that the reason is one of emotion, not logic. Perhaps there is tension between the king and his brother making him resistant to bestowing a precious keepsake of his father on his brother, or perhaps he is still grieving his father and does not want a constant reminder of him.

It isn't so much about Edward getting another title but further proof that the King can't keep a promise

Agreed, but I doubt most Britons will have any reaction to King Charles breaking a promise to Prince Edward, as unfair to Edward as that may be (especially in comparison to the scrutiny over Charles's treatment of more popular members of his family).

Moreover, how many Britons are even aware of the promise? Likely a miniscule minority. Even on this forum, where posters are much better informed than the average public about these matters, many clearly do not know of it, judging from the number of posts claiming it was only a wish of Philip and how rarely the 1999 announcement is quoted.

Edward himself does not seem all that keen on the title, and it is not a big deal.

As you explained in an earlier post, Edward's tact makes it impossible to tell whether he remains keen on it or not: "well Edward can't say too much, can he? If he is not that keen on the idea, he can hardly say that he does not want it.. if he IS keen on the idea, he can't sound TOO enthusiastic about it, as it IS something that he could only get when Philip died and the queen too."

It is indeed not remotely a big deal, which makes it even more inexplicable that the King has not done the easy and natural thing.

 

[Lilyflo]

I think the public would react favourably to Edward & Sophie becoming Duke & Duchess of Edinburgh. The title is familiar and people would see its continuation as an honour to the late Duke. I doubt very much that denying it would be seen as slimming down the monarchy when Edward & Sophie are currently working members and are likely to remain so for many more years.

 

[Denville]

The queen was in a different position, as regards giving out Scottish titles than Charles is. He has to think of the long term future.. and I think that while there is not much talk about it, there IS a danger that giving such a senior title as a dukedom to Edward in 2023 or so, might not go down well with the Scots. The general rule when the queen was giving out titles was that a grandson or son would have an English title, a Scottish title and a N Irish title...but now, there is a real possibility that in the next 20 years N Ireland may leave the Union and so may Scotland. The queen moreover was a well loved and long lived monarch and she could do things that a less popular monarch like Charles might not want to do.
Its been suggested that the queen giving Edward the title of Forfar in 2019 was because he was waiting for years for the Edinburgh title, as Philip was by then late 90s - perhaps it was a tacit acceptance that he might not get it at all, and she wanted him to have a Scottish title to use over the Border....
I agree that Edward may be being tactful, but I would put it as more likely that he was being tactful because he DIDNT really want the title all that much. He could have simply said something vague like "that is all in the future" but he referred to it as a pipe dream of his fathers.

 

[Somebody]

Giving Edward the title could be presented as 'following the queen's and late DoE's (publicly expressed and agreed upon) desire', so I don't see a risk in it at all. Especially if he does it quickly.

And in terms of Edward's response, that might also be a coping mechanism if he himself is doubtful that his brother will fulfill the agreement that was made. I don't see any reason why he wouldn't want the title (it doesn't make any sense that all sons of the current and former monarchs are dukes except for one (which cannot be presented as modernization because the next generation did get a dukedom)), even more so because he has succeeded his father in everything related to the DoE Awards.

 

[Andy T]

Wanting to keep the Edinburgh title in reserve for one of Charles' grandchildren seems an unlikely explanation in my opinion. If we assume that neither William nor Harry has more children, the titles for W & C's children are likely to be:
George (currently aged 10): Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall & Rothesay....
Charlotte: Princess Royal
Louis (currently 5): Maybe Duke of York - or Cambridge.

The above three titles won't be 'available' until someone dies - Charles (74), Anne (72) or Andrew (62). When Charles dies, the Dukedom of Cambridge will also become vacant again. Dukedoms are usually bestowed on marriage. If Louis marries at 30, Charles will be aged almost 100. If George marries at 30, Charles will be nearly 95.

If George and/or Louis marry before Charles' death, Edinburgh could be used, though in George's case, it would only be his main title until Charles' death (as he'd then be Prince of Wales, etc). Will Louis even be given a Dukedom on marriage or, like Edward, will he be made an Earl?

As for Harry's children, Archie's in line to inherit the Duke of Sussex title already and
Lilibet (and any more children) are likely to remain title-free.

Not wishing to ruffle Scottish feathers, or not wishing to bring any more "Dukes" into the picture seem more probable explanations.

However, all that said, I personally would not be that surprised to see Edward created Duke of Edinburgh before his brother's coronation.

 

[Denville]

There could be several reasons why Edward does not want the title. He might prefer the one that's he has had for 20 years, and has become known by. He might feel that Philip was such an alpha male, that he does not want to have the same title and fill such big shoes. There may have been discussions between him and Charles and neither of them really wants Ed to have the title.. even if the queen and PHilip wanted it. Charles may have brought up the issues of Scottish titles, or he may want to keep it for say a grandson like George, who will be King one day.... if Scotld remains in the UK

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The queen was in a different position, as regards giving out Scottish titles than Charles is. He has to think of the long term future.. and I think that while there is not much talk about it, there IS a danger that giving such a senior title as a dukedom to Edward in 2023 or so, might not go down well with the Scots. The general rule when the queen was giving out titles was that a grandson or son would have an English title, a Scottish title and a N Irish title...but now, there is a real possibility that in the next 20 years N Ireland may leave the Union and so may Scotland. The queen moreover was a well loved and long lived monarch and she could do things that a less popular monarch like Charles might not want to do.

I cannot see any significant change in the position of the Scottish crown during the 28 months between March 2019 (when Elizabeth II gave her son the "Scottish" Forfar peerage without any major negative reaction) and July 2021 (when Charles first publicly backtracked on the Edinburgh agreement by stating that "no final decision" had been made).

Dukedoms are usually bestowed on marriage.

Dukedoms are usually bestowed before marriage. Elizabeth II was the sole British monarch to delay the bestowal of royal dukedoms until the prince's marriage.

Not wishing to ruffle Scottish feathers, or not wishing to bring any more "Dukes" into the picture seem more probable explanations.

But I don't recall any reports of then prince Charles opposing his mother's conferral of a dukedom and a Scottish earldom on his son as late as 2018.

There could be several reasons why Edward does not want the title. He might prefer the one that's he has had for 20 years, and has become known by. He might feel that Philip was such an alpha male, that he does not want to have the same title and fill such big shoes. There may have been discussions between him and Charles and neither of them really wants Ed to have the title.. even if the queen and PHilip wanted it. Charles may have brought up the issues of Scottish titles, or he may want to keep it for say a grandson like George, who will be King one day.... if Scotld remains in the UK

Prince Edward was free to refuse his father's request in 1999 (it was a request, not a demand, according to Edward), and if he had changed his mind over the next 20 years, he surely would not have raised the subject in an interview in June 2021 and called it "a lovely thought".


I think it is worth remembering that in all the leaks and press coverage regarding the dukedom issue, there has not been the slightest hint at Scottish political considerations or Edward's feelings factoring into the King's thinking.

 

[Denville]

it IS a lovely thought, but given that his father had to die and then the queen had to die, for it to be possible, it was always IMO rather complicated and not the easiest idea to implement. Ed might well have been OK with the idea in 1999 and cooled a bit on it over the years. I can't get into that article but since it was after Philip's death I would imagine that either he felt he had to say something about it or the interviewer asked him and he returned a vague answer..

 

[kimebear]

I think the current hesitation has more to do with the situation over Harry than anything else. In his view of a 'slimmed down monarchy', Charles would not have necessarily needed Edward and Sophie to continue in their roles so prominently, and thus made the bestowal of the Dukedom an unnecessary elevation.

Now the new King is faced with the dilemma of the loss of his second son, daughter-in-law and potentially grandchildren as part of the inner circle of working royals which has changed the landscape for him where he might feel more pressure to elevate Edward but is still holding out some hope that reconciliation with Harry is possible.

 

[ppetrica]

I personally would like Edward to receive the title.
But…
Dukedoms of Kent and Gloucester have traditionally been given to younger sons of a monarch.
And look at the situation now. Present Duke of Kent has a son/heir, who also has a son/heir. Present Duke of Gloucester has a son/heir, who also has a son/heir. There is a huge possibility that there will be a son in next generations, so when these titles eventually revert to the crown, that might happen in a century from now, or several centuries, but also never.
And the late Prince Phillip was one of a kind whose boots are very hard to follow and I would like this title to remain very close to the monarch. Therefore I would like that Edward receives it, but that after him it reverts back to the crown instead of being inherited by little James. Don't get me wrong, James is such a lovely young boy, and Philip was his grandfather, but he is very likely never going to be working royal.
Now imagine that Prince George's firstborn is a daughter. Wouldn't it be nice if she was the Duchess of Edinburgh before she inherits the throne?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

it IS a lovely thought, but given that his father had to die and then the queen had to die, for it to be possible, it was always IMO rather complicated and not the easiest idea to implement.

The only complication and difficulty with implementing the thought into action is that, for reasons unclear, Charles is reluctant to implement it. If he had no regrets about the agreement he announced with his parents, it would be as simple to implement as the bestowal of any other peerage on a royal prince.

Ed might well have been OK with the idea in 1999 and cooled a bit on it over the years.

There is so far no evidence of that, and there is evidence to the contrary. None of the leaks and articles about the delayed dukedom have made any suggestion that the hesitation is coming from Edward's side. In addition to the June 2021 interview, a recent article stated:

A source close to Edward said that the lack of movement on him being granted the title Duke of Edinburgh from the King ‘had not gone unnoticed’.

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

I can't get into that article but since it was after Philip's death I would imagine that either he felt he had to say something about it or the interviewer asked him and he returned a vague answer..

The article was quoted on the previous page of this thread, but here it is:

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.’

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

I think the current hesitation has more to do with the situation over Harry than anything else. In his view of a 'slimmed down monarchy', Charles would not have necessarily needed Edward and Sophie to continue in their roles so prominently, and thus made the bestowal of the Dukedom an unnecessary elevation.

Now the new King is faced with the dilemma of the loss of his second son, daughter-in-law and potentially grandchildren as part of the inner circle of working royals which has changed the landscape for him where he might feel more pressure to elevate Edward but is still holding out some hope that reconciliation with Harry is possible.

As discussed previously, bestowing a dukedom on Prince Edward would not elevate him, formally or informally. Traditionally, members of the royal family took their formal rank and precedence from their relationship to the monarch, not the titles they held. As for unofficial prominence, Prince Edward held a less prominent role at the time he was promised a dukedom in 1999 (he was not planning to become a working royal at the time) than he does now.

 

[Andy T]

Quote:

Dukedoms are usually bestowed on marriage.

Dukedoms are usually bestowed before marriage. Elizabeth II was the sole British monarch to delay the bestowal of royal dukedoms until the prince's marriage.


I think you'll find that the 'tradition' started when George V bestowed the Duke of Kent title on his son in anticipation of his wedding almost a century ago. Even the timing of the bestowals of the titles of Duke of Windsor (1937) and Duke of Edinburgh (1947) by George VI was determined by the marriages of Edward VIII and Prince Phillip respectively.


Not wishing to ruffle Scottish feathers, or not wishing to bring any more "Dukes" into the picture seem more probable explanations.

But I don't recall any reports of then prince Charles opposing his mother's conferral of a dukedom and a Scottish earldom on his son as late as 2018.

Neither do I ... but

Charles III is not as untouchable as Elizabeth II was
The Prince Andrew and Prince Harry scandals have happened since 2018 (in both cases accompanied by calls for their titles to be removed)

The general political context in Scotland is sensitive in the lead-up to the next general election, which the SNP is planning to fight on the single issue of independence.

 

[Denville]

I think the current hesitation has more to do with the situation over Harry than anything else. In his view of a 'slimmed down monarchy', Charles would not have necessarily needed Edward and Sophie to continue in their roles so prominently, and thus made the bestowal of the Dukedom an unnecessary elevation.

Now the new King is faced with the dilemma of the loss of his second son, daughter-in-law and potentially grandchildren as part of the inner circle of working royals which has changed the landscape for him where he might feel more pressure to elevate Edward but is still holding out some hope that reconciliation with Harry is possible.

I think that in Charles' plans, he always intended to have Edward and Anne and Andrew all working on royal duties, and his sons as well.. but over time, the siblings would retire, and the RF would take on less individual charity organisations, Now he's lost Harry, and Meg who are young and Andrew who is fit and well, so he will need Edward all hte more until he can gradually slim down the work that the RF does.

 

[kimebear]

As discussed previously, bestowing a dukedom on Prince Edward would not elevate him, formally or informally. Traditionally, members of the royal family took their formal rank and precedence from their relationship to the monarch, not the titles they held. As for unofficial prominence, Prince Edward held a less prominent role at the time he was promised a dukedom in 1999 (he was not planning to become a working royal at the time) than he does now.

I don't think anyone is in ignorance that, as a prince, Edward is already about as elevated as he could be without becoming the King, but the fact remains that he is the only son of a monarch in centuries that lived to adulthood and was not bestowed a dukedom, which is clearly an elevation in his noble title and the one he would be referred to officially.

I think that in Charles' plans, he always intended to have Edward and Anne and Andrew all working on royal duties, and his sons as well.. but over time, the siblings would retire, and the RF would take on less individual charity organisations, Now he's lost Harry, and Meg who are young and Andrew who is fit and well, so he will need Edward all hte more until he can gradually slim down the work that the RF does.

Which is why I'm disappointed that Charles isn't fulfilling the wishes of his mother and father in regards to Edward. It seems very unfair of Charles to expect Edward to fill the gaps without being gifted with the title that Prince Philip himself wanted his youngest son to have.

 

[_Heather_]

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.

I really, really hope that you're correct. The King has had a lot of big things on his plate these last few months so it's understandable that this hasn't been a top priority but I do hope that we'll see this occur soon. The Earl's birthday in March does seem like a perfect opportunity.

 

[Duke of Leaside]

Thank you all for weighing in with your thoughts. All of us of course are speculating and I believe many of the theories could be wholly or partly true.

Having observed the British monarchy for close to 50 years now, one thing I've noticed is that they sometimes like to either take the public/press off guard or not reveal some or all of their reasons for doing things.

I think this ties in with the "mystique" and magic of monarchy. Many posters (myself included) predict events (and often quite accurately) but these are usually (at least in my case) based on historical precedents. Often these are accurate predictors of future events. Often- but not always. Every so often they throw us a curve, and I think this is a little bit of "remember who's boss - we do it when and how we want to". The people might think they know how everything works, but they don't.

Tradition said Dukedom's are awarded on reaching adulthood- until they're not and the Queen (and her father) waited until marriage to bestow them.

Tradition said the Prince of Wales would be created sometime (from a few weeks to up to some years) after the heir apparent became Duke of Cornwall. Then The King did it after less than 24 hours after the announcement of The late Queen's death. I know I was surprised how quick it was done, but in retrospect it makes sense. William and Catherine's titles were going to (had already) change(d) upon the accession, to Duke and Duchess of Cornwall and Cambridge. Why get everybody used to the change (and websites, stationary, etc., changed) only to go through another change to Prince and Princess of Wales only a few weeks/ months later. William was already 40 when he became eligible to be created P of W (not a child like his father was), so it was going to happen relatively soon - better to do it immediately and have only one change.

Edward and Sophie's titles will remain the same until (unless) he is created Duke of Edinburgh - only one change, whenever (if ever) that comes.

One poster mentioned that The King has a lot on his plate. That's an excellent point. In the absence of actual knowledge we all often surmise complicated motives when it may be more mundane. The Harry and Meghan fiasco playing out while working through the changeover from a 70 year reign would undoubtedly keep all staff very busy. I have wondered why the Letters Patent haven't been gazetted for The Prince Of Wales. It could just be that they haven't gotten around to it yet and there are more pressing issues.
We assumed they'd be published promptly, because they always have been in the past; but this time they weren't - so far. BOOM -new precedent.
In the end, it is The King's will to make these creations and his will if/when and how he'll make such conferrals public. Who here predicted William would be created P of W (verbally) in a televised address with no (as far I could see) accompanying press release/details, or discussion of Letters Patent? I wouldn't have predicted that!

For all we know, Edward is already the Duke of Edinburgh (mostly kidding - I very much doubt it) and The King just hasn't seen fit to inform us of that fact yet. ?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Dukedoms are usually bestowed on marriage.

Dukedoms are usually bestowed before marriage. Elizabeth II was the sole British monarch to delay the bestowal of royal dukedoms until the prince's marriage.

I think you'll find that the 'tradition' started when George V bestowed the Duke of Kent title on his son in anticipation of his wedding almost a century ago. Even the timing of the bestowals of the titles of Duke of Windsor (1937) and Duke of Edinburgh (1947) by George VI was determined by the marriages of Edward VIII and Prince Phillip respectively.

The future Edward VIII did become a peer before his marriage as per tradition (as Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall, etc.). Almost everything related to his much later abdication and marriage was exceptional and extensively debated, so I don't think the Windsor dukedom can be reckoned as part of either the old or new tradition.

Philip was a married-in, not a (British) prince of the blood royal, thus there was little choice there. Gifting him a peerage long before his marriage would not have made much more sense than creating Diana Spencer a princess long before her marriage to Prince Charles.

I concede that the Dukedom of Kent is arguable, though it was given over a month before Prince George's wedding, instead of on his wedding day like Elizabeth II's creations.

But I don't recall any reports of then prince Charles opposing his mother's conferral of a dukedom and a Scottish earldom on his son as late as 2018.

Neither do I ... but

Charles III is not as untouchable as Elizabeth II was
The Prince Andrew and Prince Harry scandals have happened since 2018 (in both cases accompanied by calls for their titles to be removed)

The general political context in Scotland is sensitive in the lead-up to the next general election, which the SNP is planning to fight on the single issue of independence.

Thank you for answering my question with actual examples of situational changes since 2018.

I don't think anyone is in ignorance that, as a prince, Edward is already about as elevated as he could be without becoming the King, but the fact remains that he is the only son of a monarch in centuries that lived to adulthood and was not bestowed a dukedom, which is clearly an elevation in his noble title and the one he would be referred to officially.

Thank you for clarifying. In that case, I understand what you mean by elevation but I am not sure how King Charles could connect the manner in which Prince Edward is referred to with his own hopes for reconciliation with Prince Harry as you suggested. It is not as if the dukedom was originally planned to go to Harry - in that case I would see what you mean.

 

[kimebear]

Thank you for clarifying. In that case, I understand what you mean by elevation but I am not sure how King Charles could connect the manner in which Prince Edward is referred to with his own hopes for reconciliation with Prince Harry as you suggested. It is not as if the dukedom was originally planned to go to Harry - in that case I would see what you mean.

I wasn't suggesting that the Dukedom of Edinburgh was to go to Harry. Merely that Charles might have been of the opinion that Edward didn't need to be granted a dukedom as his time as a working royal was going to come to a close sooner rather than later in a slimmed down monarchy with the primary support coming from William and Kate and Harry and Meghan, and eventually all of their children.

Now with Harry most likely out of the picture, Edward and Sophie are going to have to hang in there longer than Charles expected, so Edward should be granted the dukedom as previously announced. It would seem churlish of King Charles to deny what's due to a reliable and hard working royal that he's going to depend upon.

 

[Denville]

I wasn't suggesting that the Dukedom of Edinburgh was to go to Harry. Merely that Charles might have been of the opinion that Edward didn't need to be granted a dukedom as his time as a working royal was going to come to a close sooner rather than later in a slimmed down monarchy with the primary support coming from William and Kate and Harry and Meghan, and eventually all of their children.

Now with Harry most likely out of the picture, Edward and Sophie are going to have to hang in there longer than Charles expected, so Edward should be granted the dukedom as previously announced. It would seem churlish of King Charles to deny what's due to a reliable and hard working royal that he's going to depend upon.

it was never going to be like that. Ed and Sophie were almost certanly going to be expected to go on as working royals as long as they were able to do the job, and during those years, Charles and the RH would gradually slim down the work that the RF do, so that it would not be as expensive to fund. Ed hs done a long stint of work as Earl of Wessex -he may be given a dukedom or not...

 

[kimebear]

it was never going to be like that. Ed and Sophie were almost certanly going to be expected to go on as working royals as long as they were able to do the job...

Yes, but it would have been with increasing irrelevance, which is probably why Charles could have gotten away with dismissing his parents' request for Edward's title in other circumstances.

The absence of Harry and Meghan on the royal circuit means that it's mostly going to be Edward and Sophie who fill that gap until George comes of age as a working royal and he's only 9.

So that leaves somewhere around 15 years +/- taking into consideration George's time at University and military training until he's doing the public engagements. That's also assuming that King Charles lives that long, since no one knows what the future brings. Giving Edward the dukedom he was promised is a small price to pay for his loyalty and dedication in these circumstances.

 

[Denville]

Its up to Charles. As I've said adn I wont repeat again there may be good reasons why he does not wish to give Edward this dukedom....

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I wasn't suggesting that the Dukedom of Edinburgh was to go to Harry. Merely that Charles might have been of the opinion that Edward didn't need to be granted a dukedom as his time as a working royal was going to come to a close sooner rather than later in a slimmed down monarchy with the primary support coming from William and Kate and Harry and Meghan, and eventually all of their children.

Now with Harry most likely out of the picture, Edward and Sophie are going to have to hang in there longer than Charles expected, so Edward should be granted the dukedom as previously announced. It would seem churlish of King Charles to deny what's due to a reliable and hard working royal that he's going to depend upon.

I know you weren't suggesting that the dukedom was to go to Harry, but as Charles agreed to grant Edward a dukedom at a time (1999) when Edward was not expected to become a working royal at all, it doesn't seem he was of the opinion that only working royals need dukedoms.

Its up to Charles. As I've said adn I wont repeat again there may be good reasons why he does not wish to give Edward this dukedom....

Of course it is up to King Charles; that is why he is the person who is held responsible for not keeping the agreement. And yes, it is nearly always possible in royalty-related discussions that there is more to the story than the public knows, but I don't think commenters can be blamed for not relying on the hypothetical possibility of unknown reasons for which there is presently no public evidence. If new information should emerge, reasonable people will give it proper consideration and alter their opinions if appropriate.

 

[kimebear]

I know you weren't suggesting that the dukedom was to go to Harry, but as Charles agreed to grant Edward a dukedom at a time (1999) when Edward was not expected to become a working royal at all, it doesn't seem he was of the opinion that only working royals need dukedoms..

I'm not so sure that Charles did agree at the time. We know that it was what The Queen and Prince Philip wanted, and Charles didn't come out and openly say that he opposed it, but he never said that he agreed with it either, AFAIK.

 

[Somebody]

I'm not so sure that Charles did agree at the time. We know that it was what The Queen and Prince Philip wanted, and Charles didn't come out and openly say that he opposed it, but he never said that he agreed with it either, AFAIK.

He did. The statement included his name and agreement - as they knew he was the one to execute it one day; because the moment the title reverts to the Crown would be when both the queen and DoE would have died.

Here is the statement:

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 held now by Prince Philip eventually reverts to the Crown.

 

[kimebear]

He did. The statement included his name and agreement - as they knew he was the one to execute it one day; because the moment the title reverts to the Crown would be when both the queen and DoE would have died.

Here is the statement:

Wow. I didn't know that. Thanks for pointing this out. This makes it even worse, IMO, if Charles doesn't eventually uphold that statement.

 

[Villager90]

Is it possible that Charles waiting for the coronation to bestow the titles.

Then we will have Queen Camilla and a new Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh.

 

[Molly2101]

I have a feeling if Edward is ever going to receive the title, it will be announced on his birthday. The Queen announced he would receive the title Earl of Forfar on his birthday a few years ago.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

He did. The statement included his name and agreement - as they knew he was the one to execute it one day; because the moment the title reverts to the Crown would be when both the queen and DoE would have died.

Here is the statement:

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 held now by Prince Philip eventually reverts to the Crown.

Thank you for reposting the statement, Somebody.

I will repost the link as well: https://web.archive.org/web/2014020...ews/title_of_hrh_the_prince_edward/40309.html


And I may as well repost the first "leak", in July 2021, of then Prince Charles's intention to renege on the agreement, and his public response which stated that "no final decisions have been taken" (despite the seemingly "final" wording of the 1999 agreement):

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

On their wedding day, Buckingham Palace announced in a statement: “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 held now by Prince Philip eventually reverts to the Crown.”
But those close to Prince Charles, 72, say his thinking has since shifted, and he is reassessing his plans for the future. A source who knows Charles, said: “The prince is the Duke of Edinburgh as it stands, and it is up to him what happens to the title. It will not go to Edward.” Another source close to the prince, said: “Edinburgh won’t go to them [the Wessexes] as far as the prince is concerned.”
Philip’s title passed to his eldest son upon his death in April, and will remain with Charles until his accession, when it will merge with the Crown. It will then be Charles’s decision whether to bestow it on Edward, another member of his family, or to leave it in abeyance.......​

https://people.com/royals/prince-charles-prince-edward-duke-of-edinburgh-title/

A spokesperson for Charles tells PEOPLE, "All stories of this nature are speculation and no final decisions have been taken. It would be inappropriate and disrespectful to the Queen to comment on matters of accession and we will be maintaining our long-standing policy of not doing so."​

It is worth noting that the leak occurred after both the death of Philip (April 2021) and Edward's Telegraph interview in which he discussed his father's request to him to take on the dukedom (June 2021) (posted above).

 

[kimebear]

This is why I dislike the "sources close to the Prince say...etc" means of communication.

It's either made up gossip for clicks or, if you believe Harry's claim about how royals get their points across, really leaked by someone in Charles' camp at his own behest.

I also maintain that the final decision will depend on what's going on with Harry at the time of the coronation. We will just have to wait and see.

 

[tommy100]

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.