Royal Dukes, Royal Duchies and Royal Ducal Titles 2: 2022 -

[Marengo]

Arms of The United Kingdom​

Welcome to the thread Royal Dukes, Royal Duchies and Royal Ducal Titles, Part 2

Commencing September 1st, 2022 ​

The previous thread can be found here
​

Please take a look at the
TRF Community Rules & FAQs
​

· Only pictures that you have written permission to share can be posted here. You can post links to any pictures.
· It's a copyright violation to post translations of entire articles, so no more than 20% of an article
text should be posted, along with the link to the original article.
· We expect our members to treat each other, and the royals and persons in these threads, with respect.
· The Report Post button is for reporting inappropriate content in a post if no moderators or administrators are online.
· Threads should remain on topic. Posts which are irrelevant or disruptive
will be deleted or moved by one of the moderators.

***​

​

 

[DukeOfAster]

I was wondering if anyone had heard when, now that Charles is king, that Edward may be made The Duke of Edinburgh. I was hoping that it was going to happen today when he announced his giving the title of The Prince of Wales to William. I think that it is well deserved of Edward and Sophie for the wonderful work they have done through the years.

 

[HighGoalHighDreams]

While I believe this will happen in due course, the theme of today was very much the future of the monarchy and Charles's core support system in his immediate family: Camilla, William, and Catherine. I think we should anticipate this after the period of mourning.

 

[Somebody]

Current lines of succession to each of the royal dukedoms (from old to young) - I've included the generation (starting from the current duke) so you get a feel whether the title is very likely to remain (for example the Dukedom of Kent) or whether there is only one holder in each generation - making it doubtful whether it will remain for a long time to come (Gloucester and Sussex) or whether it is already almost certain that it will go extinct for lack of male-line descendants (York).

Prince Richard is the current and second Duke of Gloucester of the fifth creation - son of prince Henry who received the peerage in 1928.
1. Alexander Windsor, Earl of Ulster (1st generation)
2. Xan Windsor, Lord Culloden (2nd generation)

Prince Edward is the current and second Duke of Kent of the second creation - son of prince George who received the peerage in 1934.
1. George Windsor, Earl of St Andrews (1st generation)
2. Edward Windsor, Lord Downpatrick (2nd generation)
3. Lord Nicholas Windsor (1st generation)
4. Albert (2nd generation)
5. Leopold (2nd generation)
6. Louis Windsor (2nd generation)
7. Prince Michael of Kent (same generation)
8. Lord Frederick Windsor (1st generation)

Prince Andrew is the current and first Duke of York of the eighth creation (in 1986). There is nobody in the line of succession to this dukedom.

Prince William is the current and first Duke of Cambridge of the fifth creation (in 2011).
1. Prince George of Cambridge (1st generation)
2. Prince Louis of Cambridge (1st generation)
This dukedom is likely to merge with the crown - the only way for this not to happen is for William and George to die before Charles, so Charlotte becomes queen and Louis inherits the dukedom.

Prince Henry (Harry) is the current and first Duke of Sussex of the second creation (in 2018).
1. Archie Mountbatten-Windsor (1st generation)

 

[Duke of Leaside]

...

Prince William is the current and first Duke of Cambridge of the fifth creation (in 2011).
1. Prince George of Cambridge (1st generation)
2. Prince Louis of Cambridge (1st generation)
This dukedom is likely to merge with the crown - the only way for this not to happen is for William and George to die before Charles, so Charlotte becomes queen and Louis inherits the dukedom.

...

And of course even in the unlikely event that William and George both die before King Charles, there is still a chance that the dukedom of Cambridge could merge with the crown:


In the even more unlikely event that George at that point already had a legitimate son as his first born child - in which case said son would become King instead of his Aunt Charlotte becoming Queen.

 

[Hans-Rickard]

I was wondering if anyone had heard when, now that Charles is king, that Edward may be made The Duke of Edinburgh. I was hoping that it was going to happen today when he announced his giving the title of The Prince of Wales to William. I think that it is well deserved of Edward and Sophie for the wonderful work they have done through the years.

It will come in due course i’m sure, like it was announced back in 1999. Nothing in that announcement stated that it would happen immediately upon accession…

Prince Williams title can’t be compared to Edwards as he is the heir to the throne and it was more important to make his title clear immediately…

Edward is not unimportant but as he is not the heir and already holds 2 Earldoms and 1 Viscounty, it can simply wait.

 

[Mbruno]

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/britain/TNA/HO_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.

Does that finding also affect the position of King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden in the line of succession to the British Crown?


I mean, as a descendant of Margaret of Connaught, his father did not require consent to marry under the Royal Marriages Act, but his mother, as a descendant of Prince Leopold, Duke of Albany, did.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Yes, it does. See the earlier discussion here: https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/line-of-succession-to-the-british-throne-44513-3.html

 

[Tatiana Maria]

3. It should be noted that it is customary not to create a new title while anyone is alive who still uses or has used that title. Although Beatrice and Eugenie seem to have dropped the 'of York' since they married they are still Princesses 'of York' and so it would be inappropriate to even think about giving the York title to anyone else while either of them are alive ... and before anyone starts on the previous two creations it should be noted that the 'of York' is both situations had been 'promoted' to 'of UK'. Even so both The Queen Mum and Princess Margaret were consulted before Andrew was given the York Dukedom in 1986 and they were happy for that to happy as neither had used 'of York' since December 1936 when they became HM The Queen and HRH The Princess Margaret.

You made the same statement and I posted the same response twice earlier this year, but as you've repeated your claim for a third time I will repost my rebuttal for a third time.

If you (or anybody else) believe I have gotten any facts wrong, you are of course very welcome to say so.



There is no such custom, because the very particular situation in which

1) A royal peerage reverts to the crown because the peer lacks a male heir, not because the peer becomes king,

2) the peer is survived by family members who are or formerly were named with the territorial designation of the peerage, and

3) at least one of these family members is still living when a subsequent royal dukedom is created.

has only happened for two peerages in the history of the British royal family: Cumberland and Connaught.

The dukedom of Cumberland reverted to the crown in 1790. The next creations of royal dukedoms happened in 1799 when Princes Edward and Ernest Augustus were made dukes. The widowed Duchess of Cumberland was alive at that time, but Prince Ernest Augustus was created Duke of Cumberland.

The dukedom of Connaught reverted to the crown in 1943. The remaining family members who were or had been "of Connaught" were Princess Arthur of Connaught and Lady Patricia Ramsay (who had dropped her title when she married). The only subsequent creation of a royal dukedom to happen during either of their lifetimes was for Philip in 1947. Of course, he was created Duke of Edinburgh and not Duke of Connaught, but in view of the Ireland situation, Connaught probably would not have been under consideration even if Princess Arthur and Lady Patricia had both passed away before 1947.


Therefore: In 50% of the instances where the dukedom could have been recreated in the lifetime of a person using its territorial designation, the dukedom was in fact recreated. And that is not even counting cases in which the former bearers of the territorial designation were no longer using it.

 

[Opals]

Williams Kids

If I'm understanding all of this correctly right now the only Royal Dukedoms available for Prince Williams kids are:

Duke of Edinburgh - until issued to Prince Edward
Duke of Clarence

Once Prince Andrew dies Duke of York will also be available.
Once Prince William is king Duke of Cambridge would also be an option

 

[Sister Morphine]

If I'm understanding all of this correctly right now the only Royal Dukedoms available for Prince William's kids are:

Duke of Edinburgh - until issued to Prince Edward
Duke of Clarence

Once Prince Andrew dies Duke of York will also be available.
Once Prince William is king Duke of Cambridge would also be an option

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.

 

[Sunnystar]

If I'm understanding all of this correctly right now the only Royal Dukedoms available for Prince Williams kids are:

Duke of Edinburgh - until issued to Prince Edward
Duke of Clarence

Once Prince Andrew dies Duke of York will also be available.
Once Prince William is king Duke of Cambridge would also be an option

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?

 

[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]

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]

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]

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/britain/TNA/HO_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]

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.

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?"

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.

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.

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

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:

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[FONT=&quot]
I never said *you* expressed sympathy for James or Louise. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]But as Lilyflo pointed out, others have expressed concern for James but not Louise.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

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.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]And you responded with the following *personal opinion*:[/FONT]

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]

[FONT=&quot]
I never said *you* expressed sympathy for James or Louise. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]But as Lilyflo pointed out, others have expressed concern for James but not Louise.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]And you responded with the following *personal opinion*:[/FONT]



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]

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]

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?