The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #4781  
Old 03-10-2020, 08:54 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
Thanks! Good to know. That was my main doubt but if it's common practice among the British peers, I would indeed assume that James will be known as the Earl of Wessex once his father is granted the dukedom of Edinburgh.
He might use the secondary title, Earl of Wessex but Ed will still be E of Wess
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #4782  
Old 03-10-2020, 09:10 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 2,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
We dont know, about Archie. he would normally automatically become an HRH when C becomes King.. but maybe he and the Sussexes will prefer that not to happen. After all they don't use the normal courtesy title for Archie that he is entitled to. I think that Charles may well prefer HRH to be more restricted as it is in European coutntries… IT has been suggested that the York girls are in a bit of a pickle with their being called Princess and HRH, when they themselves are leading relatively normal lives..
We will probably need to wait for the accession of King Charles to be certain. But up to this time, there have been no published reports (to my knowledge) suggesting that he intends to restrict the HRH from Archie, whereas a number of correspondents were informed at the time of Archie's birth that "the George V convention" would be used.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
I find ti hard to believe that Edward really wanted to be an Earl when the normal thing for a prince getting married was to be made a Duke.. and if the queen wanted him to become D of Edinburgh, she didn't want him to have 2 dukedoms. Its been rumoured that the Earldom of Forfar was bestowed because Ed is not yet D of Edinburgh and she wanted to reward him for hard work.
Prince Edward consented to (and indeed is rumored to have requested) his children being styled as children of an earl rather than "the normal thing" for grandchildren in male line, and two dukedoms would be more in keeping with the norm than creating a royal earldom without a dukedom. But irrespective of the reasons, he was created an earl and viscount, and the number of royal peerages did not become fewer. Moreover, the creation of Prince Harry as Duke of Sussex demonstrates that Prince Edward's case was an exceptional one, not the beginning of a trend.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #4783  
Old 03-10-2020, 09:16 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
We will probably need to wait for the accession of King Charles to be certain. But up to this time, there have been no published reports (to my knowledge) suggesting that he intends to restrict the HRH from Archie, whereas a number of correspondents were informed at the time of Archie's birth that "the George V convention" would be used.




Prince Edward consented to (and indeed is rumored to have requested) his children being styled as children of an earl rather than "the normal thing" for grandchildren in male line, and two dukedoms would be more in keeping with the norm than creating a royal earldom without a dukedom. But irrespective of the reasons, he was created an earl and viscount, and the number of royal peerages did not become fewer. Moreover, the creation of Prince Harry as Duke of Sussex demonstrates that Prince Edward's case was an exceptional one, not the beginning of a trend.
yes because Edward was gong to be Duke of Edinburgh in due course, and also I think because the RF were still less than popular in 1999, so soon after Diana's death. They were being more minimalist, Anyway the queen is not Charles.... I think she is more old fashioned as regards titles, and she would have liked to give Ed a dukedom.. but she did alos like the idea of one of Philip's sons inheriting his dukedom.
Reply With Quote
  #4784  
Old 03-10-2020, 09:24 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 2,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
yes because Edward was gong to be Duke of Edinburgh in due course, and also I think because the RF were still less than popular in 1999, so soon after Diana's death. They were being more minimalist, Anyway the queen is not Charles.... I think she is more old fashioned as regards titles, and she would have liked to give Ed a dukedom.. but she did alos like the idea of one of Philip's sons inheriting his dukedom.
We will have to agree to disagree on the basis for the earldom granted in 1999 (I view the reported explanation as the most believable, and having two dukedoms would be no different from the two earldoms the prince currently holds), but in any event, a fourth hereditary peerage for Prince Edward and his male heirs would support the idea that the distribution of titles and peerages in the Royal Family is not being reduced.
Reply With Quote
  #4785  
Old 03-10-2020, 10:08 AM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 4,690
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
As you say, the Letters Patent issued by King George V can be (and on several occasions already have been) overruled by his successors, and it will fall to King Charles to decide whether to follow them with regard to Archie. But the suggestion from at least one palace source is that he will, and the number of HRHs will thus be increased.
This was way before the recent events happened. I cannot imagine Archie becoming HRH Prince Archie of Sussex given the decisions his parents recently made. It would make no sense at all for Louise and James as children of senior full-time working members of the BRF to not be HRH while a boy (albeit grandson of the king by then) living in Canada with his parents who are no longer known as HRH as they officially departed from the working BRF will be HRH.

However, much regarding this couple has been inconsistent, so you never know.
Reply With Quote
  #4786  
Old 03-10-2020, 10:37 AM
O-H Anglophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
yes because Edward was gong to be Duke of Edinburgh in due course, and also I think because the RF were still less than popular in 1999, so soon after Diana's death. They were being more minimalist, Anyway the queen is not Charles.... I think she is more old fashioned as regards titles, and she would have liked to give Ed a dukedom.. but she did alos like the idea of one of Philip's sons inheriting his dukedom.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
We will have to agree to disagree on the basis for the earldom granted in 1999 (I view the reported explanation as the most believable, and having two dukedoms would be no different from the two earldoms the prince currently holds), but in any event, a fourth hereditary peerage for Prince Edward and his male heirs would support the idea that the distribution of titles and peerages in the Royal Family is not being reduced.
I think the second earldom is vastly different than a second dukedom would be and yes, the Queen fully intends/intended Edward to become Duke of Edinburgh in due course. That was actually announced on Edward & Sophie's wedding day by BP. Which is even more appropriate as Edward & Sophie are now the ones who work with the Duke of Edinburgh's Awards.
Reply With Quote
  #4787  
Old 03-10-2020, 10:49 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 2,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile View Post
I think the second earldom is vastly different than a second dukedom would be [...]
Could you elaborate on how a second earldom is vastly different (in terms of following the norms, as that was the debate) than a second dukedom? As far as I can see, there is no exact precedent in the British royal family.
Reply With Quote
  #4788  
Old 03-10-2020, 11:05 AM
O-H Anglophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,638
Because the second earldom was recognition for the hard work and commitment Edward has made to Royal duties since becoming a full time Royal.

I don't think a second earldom, much less a second dukedom, was a thought in anyone's head in 1999.
Reply With Quote
  #4789  
Old 03-10-2020, 11:14 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile View Post
Because the second earldom was recognition for the hard work and commitment Edward has made to Royal duties since becoming a full time Royal.

I don't think a second earldom, much less a second dukedom, was a thought in anyone's head in 1999.
An Earldom is not usually the honour given to a Prince on achieving maturity or marriage.. so I think that giving Ed an earldom on his wedding day was parlty to give more minimalist titles to look more "democratic".. (and his children did not have HRH...)..and also because the queen saw a way of letting Philip's title go to one of his sons. So she did it that way with the intention of his becoming DUke in due course. Because Ed has a long wait for his dukedom, and because she wanted to reward him, she gave him the Scottish earldom....
Reply With Quote
  #4790  
Old 03-10-2020, 11:15 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
This was way before the recent events happened. I cannot imagine Archie becoming HRH Prince Archie of Sussex given the decisions his parents recently made. It would make no sense at all for Louise and James as children of senior full-time working members of the BRF to not be HRH while a boy (albeit grandson of the king by then) living in Canada with his parents who are no longer known as HRH as they officially departed from the working BRF will be HRH.

However, much regarding this couple has been inconsistent, so you never know.
No, I don't think Archie will be HRH. Possbily if the Sussexes return but not even then, most likely.
Reply With Quote
  #4791  
Old 03-10-2020, 11:39 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 2,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile View Post
Because the second earldom was recognition for the hard work and commitment Edward has made to Royal duties since becoming a full time Royal.

I don't think a second earldom, much less a second dukedom, was a thought in anyone's head in 1999.
Thank you for clarifying. I agree in regards to the second earldom.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
An Earldom is not usually the honour given to a Prince on achieving maturity or marriage.. so I think that giving Ed an earldom on his wedding day was parlty to give more minimalist titles to look more "democratic".. (and his children did not have HRH...)..and also because the queen saw a way of letting Philip's title go to one of his sons. So she did it that way with the intention of his becoming DUke in due course. Because Ed has a long wait for his dukedom, and because she wanted to reward him, she gave him the Scottish earldom....
I see it differently. In my estimation, the members of the general public who would consider it undemocratic for Prince Edward to be granted a dukedom at his wedding because he was the son of the queen would not perceive it as any more democratic or minimalist for Prince Edward to be granted an earldom at his wedding and a dukedom later because he was the son of the queen.

I also think the promise to create him Duke of Edinburgh in due course did not mandate that he wait for a dukedom. It would have been perfectly legal for the Queen to create him Duke of Cambridge at his wedding, making the announcement that he would be created Duke of Edinburgh when that dukedom became available, and that once this occurred, he would be known as Duke of Edinburgh instead of Duke of Cambridge.
Reply With Quote
  #4792  
Old 03-10-2020, 11:55 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Mokane, United States
Posts: 644
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
This was way before the recent events happened. I cannot imagine Archie becoming HRH Prince Archie of Sussex given the decisions his parents recently made. It would make no sense at all for Louise and James as children of senior full-time working members of the BRF to not be HRH while a boy (albeit grandson of the king by then) living in Canada with his parents who are no longer known as HRH as they officially departed from the working BRF will be HRH.

However, much regarding this couple has been inconsistent, so you never know.
I completely agree. I find it almost inconceivable at this stage to think that Archie will ever have the HRH. I suppose it's possible if circumstances change significantly but I can think of only one or two changes that would lead me to believe that he would ever receive the HRH.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
I also think the promise to create him Duke of Edinburgh in due course did not mandate that he wait for a dukedom. It would have been perfectly legal for the Queen to create him Duke of Cambridge at his wedding, making the announcement that he would be created Duke of Edinburgh when that dukedom became available, and that once this occurred, he would be known as Duke of Edinburgh instead of Duke of Cambridge.
I absolutely could be mistaken because I'm certainly no expert in matters like this. However, I seem to recall reading once that it Edward were to have been given a dukedom upon his marriage and later received a second dukedom in the form of the Dukedom of Edinburgh, then his titles and therefore those of James and his descendants would always be the Duke of Cambridge (or Sussex or Clarence or whatever they chose) and Edinburgh. That means that there would then be one less royal dukedom available for future sons/grandsons and since there are already a limited number of royal dukedoms, that really wouldn't have been workable.
Reply With Quote
  #4793  
Old 03-10-2020, 11:56 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Thank you for clarifying. I agree in regards to the second earldom.




I see it differently. In my estimation, the members of the general public who would consider it undemocratic for Prince Edward to be granted a dukedom at his wedding because he was the son of the queen would not perceive it as any more democratic or minimalist for Prince Edward to be granted an earldom at his wedding and a dukedom later because he was the son of the queen.

I also think the promise to create him Duke of Edinburgh in due course did not mandate that he wait for a dukedom. It would have been perfectly legal for the Queen to create him Duke of Cambridge at his wedding, making the announcement that he would be created Duke of Edinburgh when that dukedom became available, and that once this occurred, he would be known as Duke of Edinburgh instead of Duke of Cambridge.
Then why not just do it like that and create him Duke of Cambridge and let the Edinburgh title come along later. however we are obviously not going to agree.
Reply With Quote
  #4794  
Old 03-10-2020, 12:21 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 2,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
Then why not just do it like that and create him Duke of Cambridge and let the Edinburgh title come along later. however we are obviously not going to agree.
What is sure is that there is nothing to legally prevent the Queen from creating a second dukedom for a prince who is already a Duke. The dukedom of Edinburgh was created for Prince Frederick Lewis in 1727, many years after he became the Duke of Gloucester.

According to articles appearing in the media, the reason Prince Edward was created an earl rather than a duke at his wedding was that he himself preferred the sound of "Earl of Wessex" (which came to his attention because it appeared in the 1998 film "Shakespeare in Love") over "Duke of Cambridge".

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...im-a-duke.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ing-Queen.html

This story has not been confirmed by Buckingham Palace, but I find it to be the most believable explanation; we will have to agree to disagree on that point.


Quote:
Originally Posted by _Heather_ View Post
I absolutely could be mistaken because I'm certainly no expert in matters like this. However, I seem to recall reading once that it Edward were to have been given a dukedom upon his marriage and later received a second dukedom in the form of the Dukedom of Edinburgh, then his titles and therefore those of James and his descendants would always be the Duke of Cambridge (or Sussex or Clarence or whatever they chose) and Edinburgh. That means that there would then be one less royal dukedom available for future sons/grandsons and since there are already a limited number of royal dukedoms, that really wouldn't have been workable.
The rules of inheritance for a peerage are determined by the letters patent of its creation. If both hypothetical dukedoms were created with the standard remainder of heirs male, James and his male heirs would indeed inherit both, and in real life they will inherit both the dukedom of Edinburgh (assuming that the intention is followed through and that it is created with the standard remainder) and the earldom of Wessex.

Queen Elizabeth II conferred the dukedoms of York and Sussex on younger sons with the standard remainder to heirs male, and so appears not to be bothered by the possibility of traditional royal dukedoms being lost to the royal family. But had she wished to prevent that, it was open to her to grant Edward (and Andrew and Harry) non-traditional dukedoms or to create their dukedoms as life peerages, which would revert to the crown on their deaths.
Reply With Quote
  #4795  
Old 03-10-2020, 12:59 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 4,690
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
I also think the promise to create him Duke of Edinburgh in due course did not mandate that he wait for a dukedom. It would have been perfectly legal for the Queen to create him Duke of Cambridge at his wedding, making the announcement that he would be created Duke of Edinburgh when that dukedom became available, and that once this occurred, he would be known as Duke of Edinburgh instead of Duke of Cambridge.
The dukedom of Cambridge would always be his 'higher' dukedom as it was created earlier (in this hypothetical case: on his wedding day) than the (yet to be created) dukedom of Edinburgh; so in that case he would formally be known as duke of Cambridge and Edinburgh (not the other way around or just Edinburgh).

To me, the way they handled it seems more consistent with the wish to pass on Philip's title to his younger son. The wait is just rather long... which might be part of the reason for his second earldom (a Scottish one; just like his anticipated dukedom) - which I didn't expect.
Reply With Quote
  #4796  
Old 03-10-2020, 01:07 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 2,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
The dukedom of Cambridge would always be his 'higher' dukedom as it was created earlier (in this hypothetical case: on his wedding day) than the (yet to be created) dukedom of Edinburgh; so in that case he would formally be known as duke of Cambridge and Edinburgh (not the other way around or just Edinburgh).

To me, the way they handled it seems more consistent with the wish to pass on Philip's title to his younger son. The wait is just rather long... which might be part of the reason for his second earldom (a Scottish one; just like his anticipated dukedom) - which I didn't expect.
Yes, a duke in possession of two dukedoms would normally be known by the older dukedom or both dukedoms, but as demonstrated by the announcements of how the Wessex children, Camilla, and Archie would be known, the norms are not binding on the royal family. The hypothetical announcement that Edward would be known by the newer dukedom as Duke of Edinburgh would likewise be a special case, but it certainly could be done, and the wait would not be any longer. And it would be a lesser departure from the norm in comparison to not granting any dukedom at marriage.
Reply With Quote
  #4797  
Old 03-10-2020, 01:39 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 4,690
But in that case: why would the youngest son get two dukedoms and the middle son only one? So, imho it would have created more issues than the solution the queen saw fit.
Reply With Quote
  #4798  
Old 03-10-2020, 01:52 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
But in that case: why would the youngest son get two dukedoms and the middle son only one? So, imho it would have created more issues than the solution the queen saw fit.
I think 2 Dukedoms would look like all the RF ever thought about was how many titles they had, who had the most titles.... or who was HRH, or who bowed to X or Y, that their mindset was very trivial and out of place with the 21st century. Which was IMO why Edward had his wedding at Windsor, rather than London, and it was a less grandiose wedding ("They spend a load of money on weddngs and then they get divorced!" )
So because the queen wanted him to have Edinburgh, and because she was tryng to make the RF look more in tune with the current age....she gave him an earldom and the future children were not going to have the HRH. I doubt if "Duke of Camb" was ever being proposed, if she wanted him to have Edinburgh... Possibly Ed did like the sound of Earl of Wessex.. so when told he would only have an earldom for the time being, he chose that.
Reply With Quote
  #4799  
Old 03-10-2020, 02:01 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 2,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
But in that case: why would the youngest son get two dukedoms and the middle son only one? So, imho it would have created more issues than the solution the queen saw fit.
If the assumption that the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh wanted the dukedom of Edinburgh to pass to Edward specifically is correct, then I suppose that would be the reason. I cannot see what issues it would create.

But I am not arguing that the theory is unreasonable; I simply find the reported narrative more likely.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
I think 2 Dukedoms would look like all the RF ever thought about was how many titles they had, who had the most titles.... or who was HRH, or who bowed to X or Y, that their mindset was very trivial and out of place with the 21st century. Which was IMO why Edward had his wedding at Windsor, rather than London, and it was a less grandiose wedding ("They spend a load of money on weddngs and then they get divorced!" )
So because the queen wanted him to have Edinburgh, and because she was tryng to make the RF look more in tune with the current age....she gave him an earldom and the future children were not going to have the HRH. I doubt if "Duke of Camb" was ever being proposed, if she wanted him to have Edinburgh... Possibly Ed did like the sound of Earl of Wessex.. so when told he would only have an earldom for the time being, he chose that.
In general, members of the public who consider hereditary peerages grandiose have the same issue with all peerages regardless of rank or number of titles; there are intermittent proposals to abolish hereditary peerages or at least remove hereditary peers from the Lords, but no proposals to allow hereditary earls while removing hereditary dukes, or to allow hereditary peers with fewer than a certain number of titles.
Reply With Quote
  #4800  
Old 03-10-2020, 02:02 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Mokane, United States
Posts: 644
Given all that's happened and the changes that the family has undergone over the last 20+ years and the fact that Sophie and Edward are now full time working royals even though they, at the time, weren't planning to be, I wonder if we might possibly see Louise and James' styles being changed as they age to be more in line with those of the typically male-line royals?

I realize this might be controversial and contentious even though I don't intend for it to be but things haven't really turned out as planned on many fronts within the RF and I really wouldn't be all that surprised to find the Wessex children and the York girls stepping in to perform royal duties on a relatively frequent basis, even if they do manage to hold outside careers. I guess I'm thinking of something much along the lines already done by the York girls with their attendance at garden parties, Maundy Thursday services, etc. Nothing too frequent, nothing too time consuming, but the occasional appearance or duty. And, if that's the case and if the monarch and the Wessexes and Louise/James agree, it seems as though it would be fitting and, in fact, the right thing to do to allow them the style they're technically entitled to have.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british royal family, consort, duke of york, kate, princess beatrice, queenmother, spouse, styles and titles, titles uk styles


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Non-British Styles and Titles Lord Sosnowitz Royal Ceremony and Protocol 784 06-07-2020 11:40 AM
Diana's Styles and Titles florawindsor Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 894 11-26-2019 11:04 PM
Titles and Styles of Harry, his Future Wife and Children Aussie Princess The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family 1897 11-29-2017 03:13 AM
Styles and Titles Nahla10 Ruling Family of Dubai 50 06-02-2017 02:28 PM
Abdication Beatrix and Inauguration WA: Titles, Names, Succession, Precedence Princess Robijn King Willem-Alexander, Queen Máxima and family 67 05-24-2013 03:14 PM




Popular Tags
#royalrelatives #royalgenes althorp anastasia anastasia once upon a time ancestry belgian royal family belgium chittagong countess of snowdon crown princess victoria danish royalty diana princess of wales dna dutch royal family dutch royals emperor family tree games haakon vii henry v hill history house of bourbon house of glucksburg house of grimaldi interesting intro israel jacobite jewellery jumma kids movie king salman list of rulers mailing mary: crown princess of denmark monogram nepalese royal jewels nobel prize norwegian royal family popularity prince charles prince dimitri princely family of monaco princess chulabhorn walailak princess elizabeth princess ribha pronunciation queen mathilde rown royal balls royal court royal events royal jewels royal wedding russian court dress shakespeare snowdon spain spencer family sweden swedish royalty thailand tracts uae customs united states of america unsubscribe videos wedding gown wittelsbach


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:47 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020
Jelsoft Enterprises
×