The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #681  
Old 07-14-2021, 09:10 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 765
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
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.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #682  
Old 07-14-2021, 09:27 AM
Queen Claude's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: USA, United States
Posts: 1,187
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.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #683  
Old 07-14-2021, 09:44 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,215
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Claude View Post
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'.
Reply With Quote
  #684  
Old 07-14-2021, 03:04 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 111
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...
Reply With Quote
  #685  
Old 07-15-2021, 01:03 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,951
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-cha...inburgh-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/a...es-Edward.html

Quote:
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.'
Reply With Quote
  #686  
Old 07-15-2021, 01:57 PM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 11,187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sionevar View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #687  
Old 07-15-2021, 03:17 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
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-cha...inburgh-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/a...es-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.
Reply With Quote
  #688  
Old 07-15-2021, 03:27 PM
Stefan's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Esslingen, Germany
Posts: 5,442
Quote:
Originally Posted by camelot23ca View Post
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.
__________________
Stefan



Reply With Quote
  #689  
Old 07-15-2021, 03:41 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,951
Quote:
Originally Posted by camelot23ca View Post
Was there a reason given at the time for waiting to give Edward a dukedom, instead of giving him one when he married?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stefan View Post
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/ukn...im-a-duke.html


Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #690  
Old 07-15-2021, 04:57 PM
Excalibur's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Jacksonville, Florida, United States
Posts: 121
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.
Reply With Quote
  #691  
Old 07-15-2021, 05:24 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
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-cha...inburgh-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/a...es-Edward.html
I fully agree; it was agreed, so the decision was made. Why start backtracking now?

If true, it seems the prince is jealous... and that doesn't suit him. He is the one who couldn't keep his son in check and now might take out his 'anger' at his (imho) innocent younger brother.

If he is going back on his intention not to make his wife the princess royal (in which case something not beneficial for him is turned around into something beneficial - which I would be fine with although it would be a rather empty 'intention' that shouldn't have made; using Duchess of Cornwall instead of Princess of Wales was sufficient imho) as well as on the agreement made with his parents on the title for his brother (a decision that would turn something beneficial for his brother into something unbeneficial for his brother), my respect for him would drop significantly.

Leaking this as a way to keep his brother and sister-in-law on their edges in itself is already a strategy I disapprove of. That doesn't show statesmanship but small-mindedness and huge insecurities.
Reply With Quote
  #692  
Old 07-15-2021, 05:32 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
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.
In my opinion it means the exact opposite. All princes so far received a Dukedom, so that was what normally would have happened. However, the Duke of Edinburgh -who was too late to ask Andrew to become the future duke of Edinburgh as was his original intention, as apparently the decision had already been made to make him Duke of York - asked Edward whether he would consider becoming the next Duke of Edinburgh. Edward (and Sophie) agreed to that. That left the question what to do until that moment: the solution was to give him an earldom and a viscountcy (titles that are normally the subsidiary titles).

The alternative of giving him another dukedom at first seems moot, as if two dukedoms would have been considered acceptable the dukedom of Edinburgh would have been intended for Andrew instead of Edward based on Edward's own words.

Quote:
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/ukn...im-a-duke.html
Gossip press tells it all. The prince was to be earl for quite some time and probably requested for it to be Wessex.

The part that makes me believe that the queen might be worried that Charles will not follow through on the agreement is her awarding Edward a Scottish earldom. She might be worried that he would never receive a Scottish title otherwise. Giving him a dukedom would be a very clear sign of disconcert in the family as that would most certainly mean that Charles is not making him Duke of Edinburgh.
Reply With Quote
  #693  
Old 07-15-2021, 05:37 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Excalibur View Post
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.
The minimal uncertainty could be that if Charles passes away before the queen, it is up to William to uphold this agreement. Charles was mentioned explicitly in this statement, so he was part of the agreement. This was clearly done to show that it was not just a 'wish' but that all parties, including the one who is expected to be the one to execute it, were in agreement that this is how the issue will be dealt with.
Reply With Quote
  #694  
Old 07-15-2021, 06:08 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,540
This is incredibly petty and dishonerable behaviour by the P of W IMO. I could absolutely believe he is jealous of the good press the Wessex's are getting whilst he still struggles to improve his own popularity and that of his wife. Philip wanted Edward he have his title, there is no doubt about that, and if Charles renages on that agreement it will show him in a very poor light indeed.
Reply With Quote
  #695  
Old 07-15-2021, 06:13 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
I fully agree; it was agreed, so the decision was made. Why start backtracking now?

If true, it seems the prince is jealous... and that doesn't suit him. He is the one who couldn't keep his son in check and now might take out his 'anger' at his (imho) innocent younger brother.

I must say that looks very bad on Charles. Yes, he comes across as being jealous, which makes no sense for a future king, and also mean.
Reply With Quote
  #696  
Old 07-15-2021, 06:47 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Waterford, United States
Posts: 2,948
He also comes across -again- as a man who doesn’t keep his word.
__________________
"If you look for the bad in people expecting to find it, you surely will.”

Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #697  
Old 07-15-2021, 06:56 PM
Prinsara's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: A place to grow, Canada
Posts: 1,523
There's also been a story in Vanity Fair and people like Victoria and Dickie Arbiter saying all of this is nonsense.

It seems petty and meanspirited and out of character for Charles because it's so illogical as to probably not be true.
Reply With Quote
  #698  
Old 07-15-2021, 07:08 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 2,135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prinsara View Post
There's also been a story in Vanity Fair and people like Victoria and Dickie Arbiter saying all of this is nonsense.

It seems petty and meanspirited and out of character for Charles because it's so illogical as to probably not be true.


I hope so. It does sound petty and nasty. I really can’t think of anything more foolish for Charles to do at the start of his reign than pointedly and publicly disrespecting his parents wishes.

I hope it is all nonsense. Because this strikes me as beyond foolish to even consider, short of some specific issue with a Scottish Dukedom in the future. Or Edward pulling an Andrew- which I rather doubt.
Reply With Quote
  #699  
Old 07-15-2021, 07:34 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
The minimal uncertainty could be that if Charles passes away before the queen, it is up to William to uphold this agreement. Charles was mentioned explicitly in this statement, so he was part of the agreement. This was clearly done to show that it was not just a 'wish' but that all parties, including the one who is expected to be the one to execute it, were in agreement that this is how the issue will be dealt with.

More significantly, it appears that it was the Queen's and Prince Philip's wish that Prince Edward be created Duke of Edinburgh after the title merges with the Crown. How will it look if Charles, upon ascending the throne, reneges on a promise made to his late parents?
Reply With Quote
  #700  
Old 07-15-2021, 07:57 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,951
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prinsara View Post
There's also been a story in Vanity Fair and people like Victoria and Dickie Arbiter saying all of this is nonsense.
I hope Ms. and Mr. Arbiter are correct. Are their opinions based on sources at Clarence House? However, the above statement from the Prince of Wales's spokesperson that "no final decisions have been taken" would seem to imply that the Prince of Wales does not consider himself to be bound by the 1999 agreement. Of course, that does not necessarily imply he will not abide by it.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
dukedom, royal dukes, styles and titles


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
Royal Titles Zina Royal Family of Brunei 25 08-22-2018 09:23 AM
Moroccan Royal Names and Titles bjanka66 Royal Family of Morocco 62 07-25-2018 04:50 PM
Royal, Princely and Comital Titles MAfan Royal Families of Italy 31 08-08-2016 10:55 PM




Popular Tags
american archie mountbatten-windsor asia baby names birth britain britannia british british royal family british royals buckingham palace camilla camilla's family camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing chinese clarence house colorblindness commonwealth countries coronation crown jewels customs daisy doge of venice dresses duchess of sussex duke of sussex edward vii gemstones george vi gustaf vi adolf hello! henry viii history hypothetical monarchs jack brooksbank japan jewellery kensington palace king edward vii książ castle lili mountbatten-windsor line of succession list of rulers medical meghan markle monarchy mongolia mountbatten names nara period plantinum jubilee pless politics portugal prince harry princess eugenie queen consort royalty of taiwan solomon j solomon spanish royal family st edward sussex swedish queen taiwan thai royal family united states wales


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:40 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×