Royal Dukes, Royal Duchies and Royal Ducal Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Tatiana Maria]

And the Princess Consort announcement was worded thus:

Mrs Parker Bowles will use the title HRH The Duchess of Cornwall after marriage. It is intended that Mrs Parker Bowles should use the title HRH The Princess Consort when The Prince of Wales accedes to The Throne.

Edward and Sophie recently spoke about it in a joined interview. I would consider that a confirmation. They were personally asked by the duke of Edinburgh in advance of their wedding if they were open to being made the Duke (and Duchess) of Edinburgh in due time, i.e., after the title had merged with the Crown. They agreed to that, which meant that Edward would receive a lesser title for the time being. [...] If Charles didn't want to follow through or be bound by the agreement in the future [...] Edward would have received a different dukedom instead of an earldom.

If you are referring to this interview, in which they spoke about being asked to take on the Duke of Edinburgh title, I don't see any discussion in the interview regarding the decision to receive an earldom for the time being, or what peerage Prince Edward would have received without the Edinburgh agreement. If there is something I overlooked, please correct me.

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

It is a burden that the Earl does not carry lightly – not least when he is the one who will inherit his father’s title, the Duke of Edinburgh, when his eldest brother takes the throne. 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.’
​

Besides Prince Edward, the only future holder of the title (in that creation) that could be "royal" would be James, as any children of James would not have HRH. And since it is highly unlikely (according to Sophie) that James will ever use the HRH, I believe this is a moot point.

So after Edward, there really is no one that could possibly "sully" the royal title.

I believe the concern the person had in mind was that the title of future Dukes of Edinburgh would associate them with the royal family, with or without the HRH. I am not sure if that is the reality, but that seems to be the suggestion.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

When Charles creates his youngest brother the Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Wessex, Earl of Forfar, Viscount Severn indeed, after Edward it will cease to be a "Royal Dukedom" as James, possibly alike Archie, will not use the style and titulature which is rightfully his (HRH and a Prince of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland).

And with James's eventual son it will go the way of Kent, Gloucester and Sussex: lost for royal use and becoming a "normal" Dukedom. It is possible that in changed view of a modern monarchy Charles has another idea on this phenomenon of "Royal Dukes". But so far both his sons are created Dukes anyway and possibly this all is pure speculation by the media.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

...breaking two promises?

A. The Princess Consort promise

B. The Duke of Edinburgh promise

For various reasons, Charles is unlikely to be a very popular king (at least at first). And if he breaks two promises immediately after his ascension, he’ll be just like any bloke at the corner pub telling porkies to suit himself.

PS I don’t believe the story in the Times.

All this was an eternity ago. Society and monarchy have enormously changed. Who could have predicted 15-20 years ago that a royal Duke has broken with the monarchy and is living in California? With his Heir and a future Duke possibly growing up and living all his life in the United States.

In contrary to Prince Edward, Duke of Kent and Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester, there is no any role expected for James Mountbatten-Windsor. Should he, alike Archie, become a future "Royal Duke" too and try to pursue a private life?

It are all points of view which would never even have occured 15-20 years ago but are very actual now as the monarchy will change enormously under Charles and even more under William. It is only wise that they are not rigid on what was once a view in June 1999 but has a different views in 2021.

 

[Somebody]

I personally don't like Edward being punished for his brother's and nephew's behavior; and that is what would happen if the agreement that was made between the duke of Edinburgh, the queen and the prince of Wales (and Edward himself although formally he has no role in it) would be nullified.

There is no reason why Edward who has worked most of his life as the intended heir of this title is suddenly not receiving this title.

 

[muriel]

As I see it:

A) Camilla will be Queen legally. I would be surprised if she were styled as HRH Princess Consort.

B) Edward will be created as Duke of Edinburgh. Can't see any reason not to. He and Sophie are likely to continue to have a key supporting role in the years to come.

C) Archie and Lillie are unlikely to get HRHs as I suspect LPs will be altered. H&M can scheme and shout as much as they like, but, IMO, it is going to happen, and really has nothing to do with 25% of their ethnic heritage.

 

[kyle]

Ok, as a complete outsider, I only look at royalty with curiosity. My opinion is my own as I ponder the future.

I think royal dukes should be life peers and should be limited to the children of the monarch. I think it was a mistake to give a dukedom to Prince Harry and I think it is sad to lose the Kent and Gloucester lines. I also like the idea of a life peerage for the princesses who cannot be the Princess Royal.

I can see the historical value of having Prince Philip be the only Duke of Edinburgh. I do not think it is good for the grandchildren (James and Archie), who will not work for the monarchy to have royal dukedoms. I also do not think grandchildren, who do not work for the monarchy should be prince or princess. These are my ideas that I think are good for the monarchy.

I really like the Earl of Wessex as a person and it is a fine title to pass to his son. I also have no problem with Archie being the Earl of Dumbarton.

I also think there should be no queen consort title, because there is no king consort title. I look at things to be gender equitable in the future.

 

[Somebody]

Ok, as a complete outsider, I only look at royalty with curiosity. My opinion is my own as I ponder the future.

I think royal dukes should be life peers and should be limited to the children of the monarch. I think it was a mistake to give a dukedom to Prince Harry and I think it is sad to lose the Kent and Gloucester lines. I also like the idea of a life peerage for the princesses who cannot be the Princess Royal.

I can see the historical value of having Prince Philip be the only Duke of Edinburgh. I do not think it is good for the grandchildren (James and Archie), who will not work for the monarchy to have royal dukedoms. I also do not think grandchildren, who do not work for the monarchy should be prince or princess. These are my ideas that I think are good for the monarchy.

I really like the Earl of Wessex as a person and it is a fine title to pass to his son. I also have no problem with Archie being the Earl of Dumbarton.

I also think there should be no queen consort title, because there is no king consort title. I look at things to be gender equitable in the future.

That's impossible: Charles is currently the fifth Duke of Edinburgh.

First creation:
Frederick (1726-1751)
George (1751-1760) - merged with the crown

Second creation:
Alfred (1866-1900) - his son died before him, all his titles became extinct

Third creation:
Philip (1947-2021)
Charles (2021 - [his ascension to the throne])

 

[tommy100]

I think it would be mightily unfair for Charles not to follow out the agreement made between himself, the Queen and Prince Philip when Edward married. It was the wish of his mother and father and for that reason I do think King Charles (or whatever regnal name he chooses) will see it through.

I don't see much evidence to suggest otherwise either, one article in one paper is not exactly evidence. The reality is in time there are titles waiting for both William's children - Duke of York for Louis and Princess Royal for Charlotte.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Louis can't be Duke of York while Andrew is alive and by convention not while Beatrice and Eugenie are alive either as they are still Princesses 'of York' even though they have dropped the 'of York' now they are married.

It is also not impossible for Andrew to remarry and have a son, in which case that son will inherit York.

Charlotte can't be The Princess Royal while Anne lives either.

 

[Curryong]

Neither can become Duke of York or Princess Royal during Charles’s reign either. And Charles could live to be a hundred.

 

[Somebody]

There is no formal reason why Louis couldn't become the Duke of York if Andrew would be deceased (although it is uncommon) during Charles reign. There is no rule that the dukedom can only be awarded to the second son of the Sovereign. Although I wouldn't be surprised if he is made Duke of Cambridge in due time (but that would require his father to be king).

I don't think there are any formal regulations for the Princess Royal title either - other than that it cannot be awarded as long as the current Princess Royal is alive.

 

[Leopoldine]

Sophie has gotten some wonderful press lately.

Sensitive Charles might not like that.

Sophie and Edward remaining Earl and Countess of Wessex seems fine in everyone's book. They are well-regarded. Duke or Earl, he fulfills his dad's legacy quite well.

Charles's insistence on primacy regarding his siblings ...is something we will all watch for sure. This Edinburgh salvo is just the beginning.

 

[MsJulie]

Prince Phillips dukedom, Duke of Edinburgh, now belongs to Prince Charles. IF Prince Charles does not abide by the wishes or promises or decrees made by the Queen years ago and wishes of Prince Phillip for Edward to inherit the Dukedom, can Prince Charles give Prince Edward another Dukedom?

When Prince Charles dies and Prince William is King, can Prince William give the Duke of Edinburgh to his uncle Prince Edward?

There is an age difference of 15 years between Charles and Edward, so Edward would more then likely still be alive when William is King.

Thanks

 

[kyle]

That's impossible: Charles is currently the fifth Duke of Edinburgh.

First creation:
Frederick (1726-1751)
George (1751-1760) - merged with the crown

Second creation:
Alfred (1866-1900) - his son died before him, all his titles became extinct

Third creation:
Philip (1947-2021)
Charles (2021 - [his ascension to the throne])

Yes, of course. However, I do not think Prince Charles will be known as the Duke of Edinburgh throughout history. He has other titles that take presidency. I think I may start referring to him as the Duke of Edinburgh, but I don't think it will catch on. I should have written that I can see why it would be beneficial for Philip to be the last one to be known as the Duke of Edinburgh.

 

[BriarRose]

Prince Phillips dukedom, Duke of Edinburgh, now belongs to Prince Charles. IF Prince Charles does not abide by the wishes or promises or decrees made by the Queen years ago and wishes of Prince Phillip for Edward to inherit the Dukedom, can Prince Charles give Prince Edward another Dukedom?

When Prince Charles dies and Prince William is King, can Prince William give the Duke of Edinburgh to his uncle Prince Edward?

There is an age difference of 15 years between Charles and Edward, so Edward would more then likely still be alive when William is King.

Thanks

Once the Dukedom reverts to the crown (when the holder becomes King, either Charles or William, or if something tragic happens, George) then the monarch is free to bestow the Dukedom on a new person, such as Edward.

On the same note, the Queen can give Edward another Dukedom now (there are still a few available, plus the Queen could create a new one, as was done for the Duke of Windsor). When Charles is King he can give any available Dukedom he wants (or none) to Edward. Same with William.

And as another commentor pointed out, once the York Dukedom reverts (likely on the death of Andrew unless he has a son), though convention usually prevents a Dukedom to be assigned while children of the last Duke live, there is no actual rule barring such.

I don't know which dukedoms Wiliam will give his sons, but I am hoping for one 'out-of-the-box' selection: Duke of Clarence and St. Andrews (or Duke of Clarence, and for the first time, Duke of St. Andrews).

 

[Iluvbertie]

I doubt that Duke of St Andrews will be given when Earl of St Andrews is the subsidiary title of The Duke of Kent.

In addition if Scotland does end up voting for independence no new Scottish titles will be given. It would also not be acceptable to many Scots to give such a title in the current political situation between England and Scotland.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Yes, of course. However, I do not think Prince Charles will be known as the Duke of Edinburgh throughout history. He has other titles that take presidency. I think I may start referring to him as the Duke of Edinburgh, but I don't think it will catch on. I should have written that I can see why it would be beneficial for Philip to be the last one to be known as the Duke of Edinburgh.

There are reports that Charles enquired about using the Duke of Edinburgh title when in Scotland and was told that Rothesay takes precedence over all other Dukedoms in Scotland and so he can't use it there.

 

[Sunnystar]

Prince Phillips dukedom, Duke of Edinburgh, now belongs to Prince Charles. IF Prince Charles does not abide by the wishes or promises or decrees made by the Queen years ago and wishes of Prince Phillip for Edward to inherit the Dukedom, can Prince Charles give Prince Edward another Dukedom?

When Prince Charles dies and Prince William is King, can Prince William give the Duke of Edinburgh to his uncle Prince Edward?

There is an age difference of 15 years between Charles and Edward, so Edward would more then likely still be alive when William is King.

Thanks

That's my thought as well. It's pretty clear that William and Kate have a good relationship with Edward and Sophie. My guess is that if Charles, for whatever reason, decides to withhold the Dukedom of Edinburgh from Edward during his reign, William will, if its available to be given.

The only thing that would prevent that is if Charles bestowed a new creation on Harry, George, Louis or Archie. I can't see him giving it to Harry or Archie, and it's entirely possible that Louis won't get married until William's reign, but I could see Charles giving it to George knowing that it would eventually merge back with the Crown again.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

That's my thought as well. It's pretty clear that William and Kate have a good relationship with Edward and Sophie. My guess is that if Charles, for whatever reason, decides to withhold the Dukedom of Edinburgh from Edward during his reign, William will, if its available to be given.

The only thing that would prevent that is if Charles bestowed a new creation on Harry, George, Louis or Archie. I can't see him giving it to Harry or Archie, and it's entirely possible that Louis won't get married until William's reign, but I could see Charles giving it to George knowing that it would eventually merge back with the Crown again.

The Royal House will have to think if it is desireable to have hereditary royal dukes without any role in the Royal House. It will largely depend on how the new King and/or his successor see the organization of a future Royal House in their Reign.

HRH The Duke of York
The current royal Duke (Prince Andrew) has no royal function

HRH The Duke of Sussex
The current royal Duke (Prince Harry) has no royal function
The next royal Duke (the future Prince Archie) will not have a royal function

HRH The Duke of Edinburgh (if Edward gets this)
The next royal Duke (Prince James) will not have a royal function

HRH The Duke of Kent
After the current royal Duke (Prince Edward) Kent ceases to be one of the royal dukedoms

HRH The Duke of Gloucester
After the current royal Duke (Prince Richard) Gloucester ceases to be one of the royal dukedoms

 

[Claire]

if any of this is to be believed - and I am not saying that it is - it appears to be coming from the modernization of the Monarchy and Charles' reign taskforce. Lets be honest - this is not going to be anywhere on the top 20 things to come out of that , when we actually get the lay of the land.
I might seem like a slight and as a breaking of a promise, but Ed and Sophie appear to know their role in the scheme of things and will probably brush it off.
Change has to beginning somewhere.

 

[Fijiro]

Louis can't be Duke of York while Andrew is alive and by convention not while Beatrice and Eugenie are alive either as they are still Princesses 'of York' even though they have dropped the 'of York' now they are married.

It is also not impossible for Andrew to remarry and have a son, in which case that son will inherit York.

Charlotte can't be The Princess Royal while Anne lives either.

Prince Andrew became Duke of York while Princess Margaret was still alive, and she was of York, her and her sister (the Queen) were Princesses of York.

 

[Queen Claude]

I think that Margaret ceased being a Princess of York when her father became King. She was born Princess Margaret of York and then when her father became King, her title became The Princess Margaret.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I think that Margaret ceased being a Princess of York when her father became King. She was born Princess Margaret of York and then when her father became King, her title became The Princess Margaret.

Correct. She even complained about it because she had only just learnt to write Margaret of York and she no longer had to write the 'of York'.

She was, however, asked in 1986 (or so it was reported) whether she objected to Andrew being given the Duke of York title. She didn't because she had been promoted from a Princess 'of York' to 'The' Princess.

Beatrice and Eugenie won't be so promoted and so will always be princesses 'of York'.

 

[Sionevar]

Devil's advocate moment here - is there anything to stop the Queen from making Edward the Duke of Edinburgh now? Is it against the rules to have two peerages with the same name, or just not recommended? Queen Victoria created two separate dukedoms of Fife, although both were for the same person, so it was a simpler situation.

Or maybe she could issue a dukedom with a slight variation in the name, similar to Earl of Devon vs. Earl of Devonshire?

Charles is never going to be publicly known as Duke of Edinburgh, even when he is in Scotland, as he has other titles which take precedence. So, there shouldn't be any reason for confusion.

Unlikely, I know - just curious as to whether it's even possible...

 

[Tatiana Maria]

People magazine was given a response from the spokesperson of the Prince of Wales.

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."

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

It is interesting that the Prince's spokesperson states "no final decisions have been taken", as most members of the public (including myself) have interpreted the announcement of June 1999 as a final decision.

It is hard to understand the remark that it would be "inappropriate and disrespectful" to comment on the future of the dukedom, given that the announcement in 1999 did precisely that. Did the Prince of Wales agree to the 1999 announcement despite his belief that it was "inappropriate and disrespectful", or was his "long-standing policy" introduced after 1999?


Richard Kay, a columnist in the Daily Mail, believes that the Prince of Wales was "irritated" by the Earl and Countess of Wessex giving "high-profile interviews" and being described as "indispensable" and, he believes, leaked the dukedom story as a "warning shot" to the Wessexes. Mr. Kay bases his opinion on comments from unnamed sources, who he says are close to the Prince of Wales.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/...ons-Charles-denied-fathers-wishes-Edward.html

Someone close to Charles told me that rather than more royal titles, the Prince prefers fewer.

[...]

After two high-profile interviews in which Edward talked about the challenge of inheriting his father's dukedom, it does seem as if there is a bit of 'Wessex fatigue' among some members of 'the Firm' and Charles has fired a warning shot.

[...]

The Wessexes' physical proximity to the Queen at Windsor Castle and a discreet PR campaign which has emphasised their closeness to the Sovereign and that they are considered a safe pair of hands, has irritated some at Clarence House.

'It has been noted that they are often described as 'indispensable',' says a figure close to the Duchess of Cornwall. 'It feels strategic.'

'Charles is making it clear that his brother may have jumped the gun [over the title of Duke of Edinburgh],' says one of Charles's circle. 'It is not a done deal.'

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Devil's advocate moment here - is there anything to stop the Queen from making Edward the Duke of Edinburgh now? Is it against the rules to have two peerages with the same name, or just not recommended? Queen Victoria created two separate dukedoms of Fife, although both were for the same person, so it was a simpler situation.

Or maybe she could issue a dukedom with a slight variation in the name, similar to Earl of Devon vs. Earl of Devonshire?

Charles is never going to be publicly known as Duke of Edinburgh, even when he is in Scotland, as he has other titles which take precedence. So, there shouldn't be any reason for confusion.

Unlikely, I know - just curious as to whether it's even possible...

The title Duke of Edinburgh is for the heirs of the body male of the late Prince Philip, under these heirs is (number 8 in the succession), Prince Edward.

It would be most weird and confusing to have two Dukes of Edinburgh. When Charles passes away before assuming the Kingship, his son William is the 3rd Duke of Edinburgh.

The intention in 1999 was to create Prince Edward as Duke of Edinburgh some day. Only now, 22 years later, his father passed away but his eldest brother still is no King. It is simply a continuation of having patience.

 

[camelot23ca]

People magazine was given a response from the spokesperson of the Prince of Wales.

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."

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

It is interesting that the Prince's spokesperson states "no final decisions have been taken", as most members of the public (including myself) have interpreted the announcement of June 1999 as a final decision.

It is hard to understand the remark that it would be "inappropriate and disrespectful" to comment on the future of the dukedom, given that the announcement in 1999 did precisely that. Did the Prince of Wales agree to the 1999 announcement despite his belief that it was "inappropriate and disrespectful", or was his "long-standing policy" introduced after 1999?


Richard Kay, a columnist in the Daily Mail, believes that the Prince of Wales was "irritated" by the Earl and Countess of Wessex giving "high-profile interviews" and being described as "indispensable" and, he believes, leaked the dukedom story as a "warning shot" to the Wessexes. Mr. Kay bases his opinion on comments from unnamed sources, who he says are close to the Prince of Wales.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/...ons-Charles-denied-fathers-wishes-Edward.html

Was there a reason given at the time for waiting to give Edward a dukedom, instead of giving him one when he married?

To me it seems better - less messy, less confusing - to make changes from one generation to the next, instead of distinguishing between members of the same generation who are similar in position, such as Andrew and Edward.

Also, in this particular case they knew it would likely be decades between the time of the announcement and Charles becoming King. A lot can happen in a couple of decades, especially when you’re relying on a third party to carry out wishes that he may not have been enthusiastic about to start with.

 

[Stefan]

Was there a reason given at the time for waiting to give Edward a dukedom, instead of giving him one when he married?

The reason given was that it was the wish of the Queen and Prince Philip that Edward should become Duke of Edinburgh which was and is not possible as long as has not merged with the Crown, and that will only happen once Charles becomes King.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Was there a reason given at the time for waiting to give Edward a dukedom, instead of giving him one when he married?

The reason given was that it was the wish of the Queen and Prince Philip that Edward should become Duke of Edinburgh which was and is not possible as long as has not merged with the Crown, and that will only happen once Charles becomes King.

No reason was given in the announcement. It declared the agreement that Prince Edward would become the Duke of Edinburgh in due course, but it did not connect that agreement to the conferral of an Earldom rather than a Dukedom upon marriage. In fact, the wording "also agreed" may imply, in my opinion, that the two decisions were unrelated.

There was no explanation given for why the Prince did not receive a (different) dukedom at his wedding.

Title of HRH The Prince Edward

The Queen has today been pleased to confer an Earldom on The Prince Edward. His titles will be Earl of Wessex and Viscount Severn. The Prince Edward thus becomes His Royal Highness The Earl of Wessex and Miss Sophie Rhys-Jones on marriage will become Her Royal Highness The Countess of Wessex.

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.

The Queen has also decided, with the agreement of The Prince Edward and Miss Rhys-Jones, that any children they might have should not be given the style His or Her Royal Highness, but would have courtesy titles as sons or daughters of an Earl.​

However, the gossip press reported that the Prince requested to be created Earl of Wessex, as he liked the title, instead of the planned dukedom of Cambridge.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uk...am-asks-the-Queen-not-to-make-him-a-duke.html

Louis can't be Duke of York while Andrew is alive and by convention not while Beatrice and Eugenie are alive either as they are still Princesses 'of York' even though they have dropped the 'of York' now they are married.

There doesn't seem to be a convention barring this. If we eliminate dukedoms whose holders were promoted to King (according to the above posts), only three other British royal dukedoms were available for a potential new creation during the lifetime of the last holder's wife and/or child: Cumberland (reversion to the Crown in 1790), Edinburgh (reversion to the Crown in 1900), and Connaught (reversion to the Crown in 1943). In other cases, the wife and children of the last holder passed away before any new royal dukedoms were bestowed.

Out of the three dukedoms, two were bestowed as new creations while the last holder's wife or child was living. Only Connaught was not, and that may very well have been due to the Ireland issue.

The title Duke of Edinburgh is for the heirs of the body male of the late Prince Philip, under these heirs is (number 8 in the succession), Prince Edward.

A small correction: It is male heirs of the body, not heirs of the body male.

I don't think there are any formal regulations for the Princess Royal title either - other than that it cannot be awarded as long as the current Princess Royal is alive.

There is no formal regulation barring that, either.

 

[Excalibur]

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.

The key word here is "should". There is a degree of allowed uncertainty in using this word rather than "would". Basically, that it is subject to change. So there was never a guarantee, just that they made their wishes known of the agreement. Charles is not bound by this agreement, but I do hope he follows through on it.