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

[Durham]

In that case, Louis should have no dukedom either and be known simply as HRH Prince Louis of Wales when Charles is king and William is PoW, and later as HRH The Prince Louis when William is king.

I can't predict the future, but I find that unlikely. I believe either Charles or William (whoever is the King at the time) will make Louis a royal duke when he gets married.

In an age of sex blind succession I'd be surprised if only Louis was granted a dukedom & not his sister.

More likely that neither would be I think. I suspect they will both be offered the option of being entirely private citizens with the ability to abjure their styles & titles if they want.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

In an age of sex blind succession I'd be surprised if only Louis was granted a dukedom & not his sister.

It seems the British royal family plans to maintain traditional gender discriminatory titulature in spite of Parliament's introduction of sex-blind succession to the throne (but not to other titles). The dukedom of Sussex and the earldom of Forfar were created after the changes to the laws of succession, but their succession was limited to heirs male. Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie married after the change in succession, but were required to drop their territorial designations and take their husbands' names in communications from Buckingham Palace.

 

[Osipi]

It seems the British royal family plans to maintain traditional gender discriminatory titulature in spite of Parliament's introduction of sex-blind succession to the throne (but not to other titles). The dukedom of Sussex and the earldom of Forfar were created after the changes to the laws of succession, but their succession was limited to heirs male. Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie married after the change in succession, but were required to drop their territorial designations and take their husbands' names in communications from Buckingham Palace.

Actually, this makes sense to me. If they changed it up for the British royal family and royal peerages, it would have to be the same thing for *all* peerages of the UK. That's a totally different can of worms? Just guessing here.

The change to equal primogeniture to the succession to the Crown only involves the main line of succession.

 

[Durham]

It seems the British royal family plans to maintain traditional gender discriminatory titulature in spite of Parliament's introduction of sex-blind succession to the throne (but not to other titles). The dukedom of Sussex and the earldom of Forfar were created after the changes to the laws of succession, but their succession was limited to heirs male. Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie married after the change in succession, but were required to drop their territorial designations and take their husbands' names in communications from Buckingham Palace.

But any dukedom created for Charlotte could still be limited to her heirs male. So tradition would be maintained but at the same time she would be treated equally to her younger brother.

 

[JR76]

Actually, this makes sense to me. If they changed it up for the British royal family and royal peerages, it would have to be the same thing for *all* peerages of the UK. That's a totally different can of worms? Just guessing here.



The change to equal primogeniture to the succession to the Crown only involves the main line of succession.

I don't see a need for all peerages to have to have a gender neutral succession just because the royal peerages being created like that, but if they started creating gender neutral peerages it'd probably be seen as taking sides on a political issue which would be frowned upon.

 

[Osipi]

I don't see a need for all peerages to have to have a gender neutral succession just because the royal peerages being created like that, but if they started creating gender neutral peerages it'd probably be seen as taking sides on a political issue which would be frowned upon.

Now *that's* a great point. ?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

But any dukedom created for Charlotte could still be limited to her heirs male. So tradition would be maintained but at the same time she would be treated equally to her younger brother.

It would perhaps be too inconsistent to treat Charlotte equally to her brother while her daughters and other female members of the family continue to be treated unequally to their brothers.

Actually, this makes sense to me. If they changed it up for the British royal family and royal peerages, it would have to be the same thing for *all* peerages of the UK. That's a totally different can of worms? Just guessing here.

Although they generally do not have rights of succession, daughters of non-royal peers already have the freedom to choose not to take their husbands' names.

 

[Durham]

It would perhaps be too inconsistent to treat Charlotte equally to her brother while her daughters and other female members of the family continue to be treated unequally to their brothers.

Possibly, although I think it would be a hard sell to the British public two decades or so ahead to deprive Charlotte of something her younger brother might be given.

As mentioned up thread any such dukedoms could even be life peerages.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Possibly, although I think it would be a hard sell to the British public two decades or so ahead to deprive Charlotte of something her younger brother might be given.

That is an interesting question. On the one hand, there seems to be a movement in Britain and many other countries towards increased gender equity. On the other hand, polls have found that younger generations prefer male-only or male-preference succession more than older generations do, in regards to both peerages and the throne.

 

[Durham]

On the other hand, polls have found that younger generations prefer male-only or male-preference succession more than older generations do, in regards to both peerages and the throne.

I'm genuinely surprised by that. I'd always presumed that young equalled more progressive/less traditional but clearly that's a lazy assumption on my part.

Interesting to learn that.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

That is an interesting question. On the one hand, there seems to be a movement in Britain and many other countries towards increased gender equity. On the other hand, polls have found that younger generations prefer male-only or male-preference succession more than older generations do, in regards to both peerages and the throne.

I'm genuinely surprised by that. I'd always presumed that young equalled more progressive/less traditional but clearly that's a lazy assumption on my part.

Interesting to learn that.

Here is one poll of Londoners from YouGov, conducted in March 2018.

Do you think men and women should be treated equally in the line of succession to the throne?

Should
Aged 18-24: 77%
Aged 25-49: 80%
Aged 50-64: 87%
Aged 65+: 94%

Should not
Aged 18-24: 7%
Aged 25-49: 5%
Aged 50-64: 8%
Aged 65+: 2%



Similar rules apply to most other hereditary titles in Britain, such as Dukes, Earls and Viscounts. Do you think the law should also be changed to given female children the same rights as male children to inherit titles?

Should be changed
Aged 18-24: 72%
Aged 25-49: 73%
Aged 50-64: 75%
Aged 65+: 84%

Should not be changed
Aged 18-24: 10%
Aged 25-49: 7%
Aged 50-64: 13%
Aged 65+: 6%​

 

[Mirabel]

Didn't Earl Spencer once remark that birth order was just as unfair as primogeniture?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Primogeniture is inheritance by birth order, specifically by the eldest. He was remarking on male-only succession.

 

[Mirabel]

Primogeniture is inheritance by birth order, specifically by the eldest. He was remarking on male-only succession.

I realize that; but he meant that having his eldest daughter inherit everything was not really fair either.

 

[JR76]

I realize that; but he meant that having his eldest daughter inherit everything was not really fair either.

That's what bugs me with gender-neutral successions - instead of discrimination by gender we change it around to discriminate by age. Either way some people are at a disadvantage caused by the circumstances regarding their birth so why not just leave things the way they are?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I realize that; but he meant that having his eldest daughter inherit everything was not really fair either.

He went a bit further than that in his remark.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/...-people-pay-respects-final-resting-place.html

That's what bugs me with gender-neutral successions - instead of discrimination by gender we change it around to discriminate by age.

Discrimination by birth order (not age, strictly speaking) is inbuilt into male-preference or male-only primogeniture. Prince Charles will succeed due to being the eldest son, not a younger son.

Either way some people are at a disadvantage caused by the circumstances regarding their birth so why not just leave things the way they are?

So all disadvantages caused by the circumstances regarding birth should be left the way they are?

You kindly shared with us the news of the marriage between Scottish noble Alastair Bruce and his husband Stephen Knott in the British Nobiity thread, and I had the impression that you had no problem with it. If disadvantages caused by gender had been left the way they were, they would never have had the opportunity to legally marry.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Meghan could have been Duchess of Connaught.

 

[Iluvbertie]

No she couldn't have been Duchess of Connaught.

Connaught is in the Republic of Ireland and there is no way that titles with place names in the republic will be granted again.

Where the title already exists it will continue but once a title related to a place name in the Republic of Ireland goes extinct it will remain extinct forever.

 

[camelot23ca]

That's what bugs me with gender-neutral successions - instead of discrimination by gender we change it around to discriminate by age. Either way some people are at a disadvantage caused by the circumstances regarding their birth so why not just leave things the way they are?

As things stand now, there’s discrimination based on both age and gender. Going from two to one form of discrimination seems like an improvement to me.

Also, a gender neutral preference for the first born child is discrimination based on luck (good or bad, depending on who’s talking). The firstborn child is like a winning lottery number; no one thinks a lottery winner is somehow inherently superior to everyone else who didn’t win.

Preference for the eldest son introduces the sort of discrimination that’s based on the assumption that males are naturally preferable and superior to females. It’s the sort of discrimination that leads parents to give birth to daughters and keep trying in the hope that something better comes along. This is the sort of discrimination that has no place in today’s world.

 

[royal-blue]

Not sure if this is a silly question, but is it possible that another Royal Duchy could be created for the heir to the heir to the throne, when one exists, in the same way the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall do the same for the monarch and heir?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Not sure if this is a silly question, but is it possible that another Royal Duchy could be created for the heir to the heir to the throne, when one exists, in the same way the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall do the same for the monarch and heir?

I am not aware of any legal reason it could not be done by Parliament, but if Parliament should ever conclude that the heir to the heir to the throne deserves an independent source of income, I imagine it would be far easier in this day and age to simply grant him an allowance.

 

[royal-blue]

I am not aware of any legal reason it could not be done by Parliament, but if Parliament should ever conclude that the heir to the heir to the throne deserves an independent source of income, I imagine it would be far easier in this day and age to simply grant him an allowance.

True. The current set up is reliant on Charles financing William, who now has his own wife and 3 children. Charles had considerably more financial independence when he was a similar age.

 

[Osipi]

I am not aware of any legal reason it could not be done by Parliament, but if Parliament should ever conclude that the heir to the heir to the throne deserves an independent source of income, I imagine it would be far easier in this day and age to simply grant him an allowance.

I think that would be the most workable solution. We have to remember that the duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster were established in the 14th century and have stayed intact since then. That kind of area with properties and holdings that would generate an income would be much harder to come by these days.

 

[An Ard Ri]

Meghan could have been Duchess of Connaught.

Who ever created that video must not know any history or geography

 

[Osipi]

Really!! It's simple world geography that the Republic of Ireland is where Connaught is and that it is *not* part of the UK or the Queen's realms where she could bestow a duchy on anyone for that area. Maybe more accurately would be for this author to supposition that Meghan may have been made the new Duchess of the District of Columbia. At least he'd had the person and the geological location in the same country. ?

 

[Westfield Bakery]

Would Princess Elizabeth get a peerage from Uncle Edward?

Had King Edward remained king, would Princess Elizabeth receive a peerage if she married Lt. Philip Mountbatten?

Would she have been known as Princess Elizabeth, Mrs Philip Mountbatten?

 

[Osipi]

Not in this reality. Women weren't granted hereditary peerages then and they aren't granted now.

If she married Philip while Edward was still king, she would have been Princess Elizabeth, Mrs. Mountbatten unless Edward created Philip The Duke of Edinburgh in which then she would have been known as Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh. In her father's reign, upon marriage, she was known as The Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh.

 

[Queen Claude]

She would likely be known Princess Philip of Greece and Denmark.

 

[Alison H]

As Queen Claude said, Philip probably wouldn't have been required to renounce his Greek titles if he hadn't been marrying the heir to another country's throne. Mountbatten was the Anglicised version of his mother's maiden name: he only adopted that once it became understood that he and Princess Elizabeth were going to marry.


However, unless Edward had still had no children, Elizabeth would have been in the direct line of succession anyway. In that case, things would probably have been as they were - Philip would have been Duke of Edinburgh, and they'd have been the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh until her uncle died in 1972. I don't think she'd have been granted a peerage in her own right.


Queen Victoria was just Princess Victoria until she succeeded her uncle. The future Queen Anne was known as Princess George of Denmark until she succeeded her cousin/brother-in-law.

 

[SLV]

Didn't prince Philip already use the Mountbatten surname in the Navy? That was well before even meeting Elizabeth.