Royal Dukes, Royal Duchies and Royal Ducal Titles

[Iluvbertie]

I am still trying to find one single instance of when Charles has actually said that he intends on slimming down the family. I have seen media reports but not one can give a date, speech etc when Charles actually said this.

Other than the visual signs of fewer people on the balcony what does he actually intend on doing to make the family 'smaller'?

[Prinsara]

Originally Posted by Sunnystar

George III made one of his sons Duke of Clarence & St Andrews, and Victoria made the eldest son of the PoW Duke of Clarence & Avondale, so it's possible Charles or William could use all three, in separate dukedoms, if necessary.

Some Scottish royal dukedoms that are extinct include:
Duke of Ross
Duke of Kintyre & Lorne

Beyond that, those are the only dukedoms that have been created for royals currently available. Doesn't preclude Charles or William from creating an entirely new dukedom with no prior royal association.

I suppose the question would be, then, what are the potential places that could be used for such a purpose?

Don't forget Windsor. (I know it's anathema, but it counts.)

[Stefan]

Originally Posted by Sister Morphine

William doesn't have to give a dukedom to either of his sons. Yes, the custom is there, but if he plans to continue the "slimming down" of the BRF that his father intends to initiate, he may not give either of them a dukedom knowing George will become Duke of Cornwall and Duke of Rothesay in time. He could give Louis an earldom, just like QEII gave to Edward.

It is quiet possible that George is already Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall etc. by the time he marries.

[SirGyamfi1]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

A British Foreign Office investigation in 1950 confirmed that none of the children of Duke Karl Eduard of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, Duke of Albany, requested permission from the British monarch for any of their marriages.

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/bri...O_45_25238.htm

Therefore, all of the grandchildren of Duke Karl Eduard were illegitimate in British law (at least until the Succession to the Crown Act), and consequently they and their descendants (including Hubertus) were not in line to petition for the succession to the suspended dukedom of Albany.

So between the death of Duke Karl Eduard's last surviving son (who was legitimate in British law as Karl Eduard received permission for his own marriage) in 1983 and the Succession to the Crown Act taking effect in 2015, the Dukedom of Albany was extinct and available for regrant. There was no legal obstacle to the Queen creating Prince Andrew in 1986, Prince Edward in 1999, or Prince William in 2011 as Duke of Albany.

But the Queen didn’t and probably didn’t want to give that title because of its association with the infamous title holder who was stripped of it.

[Marengo]

News and discussion about the title of Duke of Edinburgh, that was conferred on Prince Edward, can be found here.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

That the egalitarian Scandinavian or Dutch monarchies did not allow female nobles to pass titles was exactly because of the undesired side-effect: it would continue the hereditary Nobility rather than let it fade away in a dormant state.
[...]
People who advocate gender equality in Nobility effectively promote perpetuity in this most excluding social system imagineable.

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

I do not get the hullabaloo about the Edinburgh Dukedom being non-hereditary. Alexander Windsor, Earl of Ulster will be the next Duke of Gloucester. George Windsor, Earl of St Andrews will be the next Duke of Kent. I fail to see why James Mountbatten-Windsor, Earl of Wessex can not be the next Duke of Edinburgh.

What is the "gain" for him not inheriting a ducal title while there are no less than 30 dukes walking around? From all these ducal peerages, only the Edinburgh one is not hereditary. I honestly fail to see any advantage, gain or "modernity" to that.

Later we will see a Duke's son surrounded by Northumberland, Montrose, Beaufort, Norfolk, Marlborough, effortlessly inherited their titles and oh yes... no, James, no... "we are modernized, you can not inherit your father's dukedom. And yes, your cousin Archie will be a Duke. You will not become a Duke. We are Modern now, you see?"

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

And what to think about the discrimination of a Sovereign's grandson, Archie, being a heir to a ducal peerage and another Sovereign's grandson, James, is not?

If there is an aim to fade away nobility in European monarchies and that is the justification for their perpetuation of gender exclusionary succession laws, then is it not consistent with that aim to switch to lifetime conferrals?

If the discrimination of a royal duke's eldest child, Archie, being heir to the dukedom, while another royal duke's eldest child, Beatrice, is heiress to nothing because she is not male, is acceptable because nobility itself is exclusionary, then the discrimination between Archie and James should be even less concerning. At least for James, the discrimination is purely down to impersonal circumstances, not his gender or any other discriminated characteristic.

Originally Posted by Mirabel

Yes, but no money or property accompanies the title.
So, why would a ducal title have more of an impact?
It's really just a name, right?

That would be a good question to ask the British monarchs and governments who slowed and then stopped the creations of dukedoms outside the royal family during the 20th century. I am not well versed in that history, but there must have been reasons, good or bad, for the unofficial policy change.

Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi

Why would you want them only for life? Isn't one of the big factors that they stay in the family for generations?

Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi

As a historian I disagree. It's a hereditary system that connects the past and present. If noble titles aren't inherited why should the title of King? But this Convo shouldn't be discussed in this thread.

A hereditary peerage granted to a younger son who goes on to have many generations of male-line heirs is borne in due course by men who are only very distantly related to the royal family. A life peerage granted to a younger son reverts to the crown and becomes available for regrant someone who, unlike his distant male-line descendants, is a member of the royal family.

wbenson thoughtfully enumerated a list of possible advantages of life peerages which I'll quote here:

Originally Posted by wbenson

From the point of the view of the Palace, I think life peerages offer several advantages that could be perceived (assuming this is really being considered):

• There's long been an aversion to new non-royal dukes, and a royal dukedom is in some ways simply a time-delayed creation of just that.
• Life dukedoms would allow for titles closely associated with the royal family to remain that way, rather than falling away to collateral lines. Once a title has been granted several times, only to royalty, letting it spiral off to eventual strangers could feel a little like selling off the family jewels. Perhaps it might be better to let the next duke (or duchess?) of York use that title for life rather than relying on luck (or a curse) to return it to availability naturally as has happened so many times already.
• Relatedly, the "heirs male" remainders are now extremely outdated, but expanding that to straight primogeniture would make it all the more likely that the titles would fall away.
• In the era of the "working" distinction, a hereditary title for a junior line could fuel a perception that a "non-working" member of the family is in line for prestige above his pay grade. If there's ever a move to a regime where titles=work, I can't imagine having to try to explain that a dukedom—"girding him with a sword and putting a cap of honour and a coronet of gold on his head"—isn't that kind of title.

[Lilyflo]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

If the discrimination of a royal duke's eldest child, Archie, being heir to the dukedom, while another royal duke's eldest child, Beatrice, is heiress to nothing because she is not male, is acceptable because nobility itself is exclusionary, then the discrimination between Archie and James should be even less concerning. At least for James, the discrimination is purely down to impersonal circumstances, not his gender or any other discriminated characteristic.

THIS
Some people's concern for James losing out doesn't appear to extend to his older sister being sidelined for her younger brother just because she is female.

[SirGyamfi1]

Originally Posted by Lilyflo

THIS
Some people's concern for James losing out doesn't appear to extend to his older sister being sidelined for her younger brother just because she is female.

Louise was not in line for the Dukedom or the Earldom so I don’t see the issue. No one ever discriminated against Archie in inheriting for his race, but simply because his parents disparaged the institution and because he’s not going to be a working royal. The Duke of Edinburgh title is for Edwards life only anyways.

[Moran]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

If the discrimination of a royal duke's eldest child, Archie, being heir to the dukedom, while another royal duke's eldest child, Beatrice, is heiress to nothing because she is not male, is acceptable because nobility itself is exclusionary, then the discrimination between Archie and James should be even less concerning. At least for James, the discrimination is purely down to impersonal circumstances, not his gender or any other discriminated characteristic.

I'd say that for James, the discrimination is purely down to extremely personal circumstances. IMO, changes should be made by generations. It started with Louise and James and a big part of it was because Charles, Andrew and Anne had turned the monarchy into something of a big soap opera with their personal affairs being splashed all over the newspapers. (I'm not saying it's their fault but it did happen because of them.) So, what do we do? Easy-peasy, let's use Edward and Sophie's children to show how modern we are! The working royals thing was made into a big affair - only, it didn't quite work this way with Archie's parents, did it? They not only quit, they kept being as insulting not just to the RF but the UK and the monarchy as a whole - where we stop being modern and we let them keep the title, although we previously made such a big fuss over the working royal thing. Not only this but we let their kid get to inherit the title and being called Prince of the institution they made a mockery of instead of moving our asses to find a solution other than keep modernizing - again, at the expense of Edward and Sophie's children. And we expect acolades. Not from me.

The BP just took the easiest road by keeping their modern image on the back of those they knew wouldn't fight, while bending backwards for the Sussexes.

I'm still not ready to give up on them. I'll wait for some time after the coronation but if the Sussexes aren't put firmly in their place according to the principles the BP insists it follows but somehow always manages to exempt the Sussexes from, I'm done with them. I never liked spinelessness.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Lilyflo

THIS
Some people's concern for James losing out doesn't appear to extend to his older sister being sidelined for her younger brother just because she is female.

Originally Posted by SirGyamfi1

Louise was not in line for the Dukedom or the Earldom so I don’t see the issue. No one ever discriminated against Archie in inheriting for his race, but simply because his parents disparaged the institution and because he’s not going to be a working royal. The Duke of Edinburgh title is for Edwards life only anyways.

Are you truly having difficulties with seeing the meaning of Lilyflo's comment, or is the first sentence a very indirect way saying that you (not Lilyflo) have no issue with the gender discrimination?

I only ask this because you have replied in essentially the same manner to many posters in similar discussions, and I do not wish to misunderstand.

In either case, I am afraid I cannot see how disparaging the institution or not being a working royal relates to it.

[SirGyamfi1]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

Are you truly having difficulties with seeing the meaning of Lilyflo's comment, or is the first sentence a very indirect way saying that you (not Lilyflo) have no issue with the gender discrimination?

I only ask this because you have replied in essentially the same manner to many posters in similar discussions, and I do not wish to misunderstand.

In either case, I am afraid I cannot see how disparaging the institution or not being a working royal relates to it.

What’s wrong with my response? Louise was never in line for the Earldom or Dukedom so how was she being sidelined? You can’t be sidelined out of something when you were never part of it. I understand perfectly well what the poster is saying. Thank you very much for questioning my comprehension skills (not). The letters patent of the Earldom of Wessex, im sure you know, is heirs male of the body and given the timing and Charles’s plans for the monarchy, extending the dukedom beyond anyone would go against those plans.

[Gawin]

Originally Posted by SirGyamfi1

What’s wrong with my response? Louise was never in line for the Earldom or Dukedom so how was she being sidelined? You can’t be sidelined out of something when you were never part of it. I understand perfectly well what the poster is saying. Thank you very much for questioning my comprehension skills (not). The letters patent of the Earldom of Wessex, im sure you know, is heirs male of the body and given the timing and Charles’s plans for the monarchy, extending the dukedom beyond anyone would go against those plans.

But the fact that Louise was never in line for either title is proof she was sidelined. While James won't inherit his father's ducal title he will inherit the others. Louise won't, even James should die young, leaving her as Edward's only child and heir. Expressing sympathy for James but not Louise seems odd.

[SirGyamfi1]

Originally Posted by Gawin

But the fact that Louise was never in line for either title is proof she was sidelined. While James won't inherit his father's ducal title he will inherit the others. Louise won't, even James should die young, leaving her as Edward's only child and heir. Expressing sympathy for James but not Louise seems odd.

I never expressed sympathy for James or Louise, though. The Earldom was created on 19th June 1999, by the Queen herself and the remainder is there. I am simply stating facts. I haven’t expressed any personal opinions. If Edward wants to do something about his Earldom, he can ask for a writ as a few have done.

[Gawin]

Originally Posted by SirGyamfi1

I never expressed sympathy for James or Louise, though. The Earldom was created on 19th June 1999, by the Queen herself and the remainder is there. I am simply stating facts. I haven’t expressed any personal opinions. If Edward wants to do something about his Earldom, he can ask for a writ as a few have done.

I never said *you* expressed sympathy for James or Louise.

But as Lilyflo pointed out, others have expressed concern for James but not Louise.

Originally Posted by Lilyflo

Some people's concern for James losing out doesn't appear to extend to his older sister being sidelined for her younger brother just because she is female.

And you responded with the following *personal opinion*:

Originally Posted by SirGyamfi1

Louise was not in line for the Dukedom or the Earldom so I don’t see the issue. No one ever discriminated against Archie in inheriting for his race, but simply because his parents disparaged the institution and because he’s not going to be a working royal. The Duke of Edinburgh title is for Edwards life only anyways.

Which completely misses the point. If its not an issue for Louise because she was never in line for the Dukedom or Earldom, why do some people think it IS an issue for James when he likewise isn’t in line for the Dukedom? At least he'll end up with Edward's other titles. Louise gets NONE.

[Iluvbertie]

Louise is in the same position as Beatrice - a girl and therefore not good enough to inherit her father's titles.

[SirGyamfi1]

Originally Posted by Gawin

I never said *you* expressed sympathy for James or Louise.

But as Lilyflo pointed out, others have expressed concern for James but not Louise.


And you responded with the following *personal opinion*:



Which completely misses the point. If its not an issue for Louise because she was never in line for the Dukedom or Earldom, why do some people think it IS an issue for James when he likewise isn’t in line for the Dukedom? At least he'll end up with Edward's other titles. Louise gets NONE.

I think people are only “feeling sorry” for James because they thought the Dukedom would be hereditary after all the time Charles has taken to give the title and knowing that his parents wished for it for him. People were so happy that they forgot about Charles’s plans to streamline the monarchy. The idea of life title was a bit of surprise to most.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

Louise is in the same position as Beatrice - a girl and therefore not good enough to inherit her father's titles.

It has nothing to do wiht not being good enough. It is simply law and custom that peers were male.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by SirGyamfi1

I think people are only “feeling sorry” for James because they thought the Dukedom would be hereditary after all the time Charles has taken to give the title and knowing that his parents wished for it for him. People were so happy that they forgot about Charles’s plans to streamline the monarchy. The idea of life title was a bit of surprise to most.

It was unusual but in line with the general policy in European monarchies to slim things down. Even fi Charles has never said this in a speech, it does not mean that he is not aware of a general feeling that it is best to prune things, to have less grandeur, to spend money more carefully and to de emphasise the distance between the monarchy and the people. Most Monarchies have done something similar in teh recent past, most notabley right now in Denmark where titles have been removed from some royals.
I dont think that anyone is sorry for James. He is a privileged young man. If titles mean anything to him, he will have his father's earldoms in due course so why should anyone feel sorry for him because he's not a duke?

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Gawin

But the fact that Louise was never in line for either title is proof she was sidelined. While James won't inherit his father's ducal title he will inherit the others. Louise won't, even James should die young, leaving her as Edward's only child and heir. Expressing sympathy for James but not Louise seems odd.

Its a mystery to me why anyone should feel sympathy for either of them

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Denville

Its a mystery to me why anyone should feel sympathy for either of them

I feel sympathy for James and Louise for not being able to use the title of Prince/Princess when Beatrice, Eugenie, Archie and Lilibet can. I find it unfair.

The notion that they could "choose" to be styled Prince/Princess after they turn 18 (as their mother said) is not realistic once they have been styled as children of a peer only since they were born. In a way, the choice that their parents made for them when they were born has conditioned their style for the rest of their lives. In any case, if we are to believe the anonymous "souces" that other posters have mentioned in these forums, the King is opposed to James and Louise being styled HRH Prince/Princess now, so there isn't a choice in practice anymore.