Edinburgh and Wessex Titles

[Denville]

Never heard of this. so I presume if Charles wanted to give the dukedome of York to Louis, say, he would have to ask Bea and Eugenie.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

If the title is granted as non-hereditary it does sort of defeat the purpose of the late Duke of Edinburgh wanting to pass on his title.

I don't really see the problem in it becoming non-royal one day. Are they worried about having a Duke of Edinburgh who has nothing to with the Duke of Edinburgh awards?

Possibly. But I also think it’s because of all the years of Charles’s slimmed down monarchy approach and being consistent in that.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

It also isn't done to create a new form of a title if any of these people are still using the title e.g. the wife is still the 'dowager' or the daughters are still 'of xxxx'.

That it has rarely been done so far isn't due to tradition, but lack of opportunity.

There have only been two British royal women who were still using the territorial designation of an extinct dukedom by the time the monarch created another royal duke.

The first one was the Duchess of Cumberland, King George III's widowed sister-in-law. King George III did recreate the Dukedom of Cumberland for his son while she was still using the title Duchess of Cumberland. And, considering she was banned from court, I doubt the king asked for her permission.

The second one was Princess Arthur of Connaught. The only royal duke who was created while she was still using the title was Prince Philip in 1947. Obviously, he was not given the dukedom of Connaught, but considering Connaught's location in Ireland, I doubt he would have received it even if Princess Arthur of Connaught was deceased.

Thus, with 50% of the opportunities to recreate a royal dukedom while a widow or daughter(-in-law) is still using the title, it has been recreated.

 

[Mbruno]

Never heard of this. so I presume if Charles wanted to give the dukedome of York to Louis, say, he would have to ask Bea and Eugenie.

Beatrice and Eugenie don't use the designation "of York" anymore, so I can't see why they would object. In fact, I think consulting them would make sense if they were still single, but not now that they are married and members of the Mapelli Mozzi and Brooksbank families respectively.

 

[Claire]

We might in the future hear of all happenings that occurred here. i firmly believe that the Princess Royal might have persuaded Charles to give it. And it has essentially been done as a reputation saver. One reporter noted - Charles broke his wedding vows. Breaking a promise to his parents and brothers is not a good start to his reign. I believe that it has placed several of his advisors in a tiff. Charles appears to be going off script.

It has been noted by several of the journalist - telegraph and SKY - that the title might be passed to Charlotte in time. I believe that Charles and William want to leave each of the children a project - so George get Earthshot and Prince Trust, Charlotte - Duke of Edinburgh Awards and Louis get the Childhood Development - something like that.

 

[ppetrica]

We might in the future hear of all happenings that occurred here. i firmly believe that the Princess Royal might have persuaded Charles to give it. And it has essentially been done as a reputation saver. One reporter noted - Charles broke his wedding vows. Breaking a promise to his parents and brothers is not a good start to his reign. I believe that it has placed several of his advisors in a tiff. Charles appears to be going off script.

In my opinion it wasn't like that at all.
I believe that Charles was perfectly willing to give Edward the dukedom.
But Edward and Sophie wanted to wait just a bit and not receive it immediately after the Queen's passing.
Both Edward and Sophie were very close to the Queen and Prince Philip, especially Sophie, they were like a mother and father to her. And let's not forget, Philip was the duke, but the Queen was also his duchess. And I'm sure the Wessexes wanted some more time to mourn the Queen before taking over the Dukedom of Edinburgh.

 

[Denville]

Beatrice and Eugenie don't use the designation "of York" anymore, so I can't see why they would object. In fact, I think consulting them would make sense if they were still single, but not now that they are married and members of the Mapelli Mozzi and Brooksbank families respectively.

It seems odd to me, its up to the monarch to give titles, and I dont see any need to ask for approval from people who used them before esp if they were only "of York" or Of Edinburgh.. but if its a custom, its a custom.

 

[Denville]

In my opinion it wasn't like that at all.
I believe that Charles was perfectly willing to give Edward the dukedom.
But Edward and Sophie wanted to wait just a bit and not receive it immediately after the Queen's passing.
Both Edward and Sophie were very close to the Queen and Prince Philip, especially Sophie, they were like a mother and father to her. And let's not forget, Philip was the duke, but the Queen was also his duchess. And I'm sure the Wessexes wanted some more time to mourn the Queen before taking over the Dukedom of Edinburgh.

I think there were reasons why Charles took his time over giving it, and I aim inclined to think that Edward, while it was an honour, woudl have been fine without it. I suspect he knew that James probably does not want to inherit a dukedom, with a famous name attached to it, and making it a life peerage helped to sort out that problem.....
He made a promise to the queen and Philip and Im sure he wuld not have broken that promise lightly but there might well be reasons why it seemed the best thing to do.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I am wondering whether one of the reasons for the delay is that the former 'Great Seal' had to be destroyed and a new one made for Charles. I remember reading something about the seals etc having to be broken at the end of a reign and new ones made. If my fading memory is correct that may explain the delay.

King Charles III already issued numerous Letters Patent under the Great Seal, including many creations of life peerages.

From The Gazette, it seems his first letters patent were dated September 21, 2022 and made appointments to various ecclesiastical offices. His first peerage creation was apparently the bestowal of a barony on Nicholas Francis Markham by letters patent dated October 7, 2022.

I believe that Charles was perfectly willing to give Edward the dukedom.

But if so, then why did he say beginning in 2021 (on the record, not only through "sources") that he had not made the final decision?

Possibly. But I also think it’s because of all the years of Charles’s slimmed down monarchy approach and being consistent in that.

I agree with those who have said it would not grant James any greater of a role in the monarchy or any higher royal status if he became a duke as opposed to an earl.

And it has essentially been done as a reputation saver. One reporter noted - Charles broke his wedding vows. Breaking a promise to his parents and brothers is not a good start to his reign.

Even the majority of royal reporters and royal watchers appear to be unaware of the publicly announced promise. Notice how many media articles and royal forum discussions have referred to it as a mere "wish" of Prince Philip and Queen Elizabeth, without mentioning Prince Charles's public agreement. Considering that, I doubt the general public is even dimly aware of the promise.

 

[tommy100]

I think the "no decision has been made" comment is semantics. Personally I never read it as Charles wouldn't give Edward the title just, as it states that at the time of commenting no decisions had been made about the title. That may simply have mean the only "decision" to make was when to give Edward the title, clearly we can now conclude a part of the decision being made was also whether to make it hereditary or not.
I think personally it was somewhat poor wording by whoever made the comment but to be honest I don't know what else could have been said - especially if they didn't want to announce Charles would definitely give the title to Edward (which I assume would be seen as presumptuous for a Spokesperson to do so until the King wanted it announced)


"An announcement will be made in due course" (announcement its going to Edward or its not going to Edward?)

"The matter has not yet be considered by the King given everything else he has to deal with since the accession" (The King is overwhelmed? is he considering not giving the title to Edward?)

 

[Katariina]

If Edward still lives when William's children get married and get their titles what do you think will happen to the title? I wonder if William could give it to James in that case after Edward. But maybe it would just go unused until another generation perhaps. Or maybe the same thing will happen again where Charlotte or Louis will just wait for the title for a while after their wedding and use some other title.

 

[tommy100]

Good point, I guess in time it could go to James still. By making it lifetime only it leaves more options open. You only have to look at the fact the titles Duke of Kent and Gloucester are likely to be lost as a Royal Dukedoms for many decades to come to see why a granting any royal dukedom for lifetime only is actually a good idea. The days of warring families "dispatching" those who hold royal titles, or indeed premature death or short life expectancy returning royal dukedoms to the crown are largely over. Now it seems its most likely a royal dukedom would only return to the crown if there are no males heirs - e.g. the Duke of York title.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Well, now the line of succession page reads "James, Earl of Wessex". That's better but I agree it should be just "Earl of Wessex". Before today it read "Viscount Severn", NOT "James, Viscount Severn" or "The Viscount Severn"

Absolutely. In formal settings, he is supposed to be styled as simply "the Earl of Wessex" (no capitalized The), not "James, Earl of Wessex".

The guidance from Debrett's:

Earl by Courtesy

Although the bearer of the title earl by courtesy enjoys none of the privileges of a peer, he is addressed as such with the following exceptions:
- an earl by courtesy is never accorded the formal style of 'The Right Hon' unless he also happens to be a privy counsellor
- an earl by courtesy is not addressed as 'The' in correspondence. This is restricted to actual peers.

Normally a peer by courtesy is called 'Lord ……', but if there is a special reason for an earl by courtesy to be referred to by his precise courtesy title, he is called verbally 'the Earl of Arundel' this being the usual colloquial form of reference.

Although that might not be how officially it should be, but i think many people are not as well versed (or as interested) in titles as some of the members here on these forums, and i think it might be very confusing at this point to have 'earl of Wessex' further down the succession line than a week ago (just because it's now James and not Edward anymore).

But by this reasoning, Edward should to be referred to as (Prince) Edward, Duke of Edinburgh, and not only The Duke of Edinburgh, to prevent confusion with his late father.

It seems much more likely that the courtier who updated the website simply was not well versed in protocol.

I think the "no decision has been made" comment is semantics. Personally I never read it as Charles wouldn't give Edward the title just, as it states that at the time of commenting no decisions had been made about the title. That may simply have mean the only "decision" to make was when to give Edward the title, clearly we can now conclude a part of the decision being made was also whether to make it hereditary or not.

The press release in 1999 was already formulated as a decision, though: "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."

So the then Prince Charles's 2021 statement that "no final decisions have been taken" still reneged on the finality of the 1999 decision.

As the statement was issued in response to a report that Charles was contemplating never regranting the dukedom, I wouldn't interpret it as a mere reference to timing.

I think personally it was somewhat poor wording by whoever made the comment but to be honest I don't know what else could have been said - especially if they didn't want to announce Charles would definitely give the title to Edward (which I assume would be seen as presumptuous for a Spokesperson to do so until the King wanted it announced)

If then Prince Charles never had any thought of breaking the 1999 agreement, he could have instructed his spokesperson to direct the reporters to the 1999 press release without adding anything more. I assume royal spokespersons state what their employers want them to state.

 

[Noble Consort Ming]

And let's not forget, Philip was the duke, but the Queen was also his duchess. And I'm sure the Wessexes wanted some more time to mourn the Queen before taking over the Dukedom of Edinburgh.

Interestingly at the time of the queen's death it was Camilla who was Duchess of Edinburgh as Charles had inherited the title from his father.

 

[Denville]

Good point, I guess in time it could go to James still. By making it lifetime only it leaves more options open. You only have to look at the fact the titles Duke of Kent and Gloucester are likely to be lost as a Royal Dukedoms for many decades to come to see why a granting any royal dukedom for lifetime only is actually a good idea. The days of warring families "dispatching" those who hold royal titles, or indeed premature death or short life expectancy returning royal dukedoms to the crown are largely over. Now it seems its most likely a royal dukedom would only return to the crown if there are no males heirs - e.g. the Duke of York title.

Clearly they do not want it to go to James. Charles is sticking to his promise to his father to give the title to one of his sons, but they dotn want it to go on to the next male heir. Possibly by the time Edward dies Scotland will have moved out of the UK and they certainly wont want the title to be still among the royal titles.

 

[Heavs]

I don't think this is a "reputation saver" move or the reason Charles did it. I don't think most people in the UK really care about who gets what title (except maybe POW) and they don't realise it was a formal agreement between parties, even with Edward and Sophie's big profile in The Telegraph last year.

However, this is unquestionably a good move. If anyone "deserves" more recognition in a monarchy it is clear that Edward and Sophie do and Edward looked extremely happy in the videos of the trip to Edinburgh.

This solution fulfils Philip's wish to past his title down to his son, "rewards" Edward and Sophie for their hard work, makes the DOE awards congruent with the title and still gives them title options for the future should the monarchy survive.

I do think there was a lot of BTS issues and it wasn't simply a case of "letting the title lie" for a while because of mourning - Charles wasted no time creating William and Kate PPOW when most have had to wait a few months. But I suppose we'll never really know and Life Peerage is an excellent compromise to some of Charles's alleged concerns.

I do think all Royal Dukedoms in the future should be life peerages with lesser titles going to heirs male and female.

 

[sophie25]

I don't think this is a "reputation saver" move or the reason Charles did it. I don't think most people in the UK really care about who gets what title (except maybe POW) and they don't realise it was a formal agreement between parties, even with Edward and Sophie's big profile in The Telegraph last year.

However, this is unquestionably a good move. If anyone "deserves" more recognition in a monarchy it is clear that Edward and Sophie do and Edward looked extremely happy in the videos of the trip to Edinburgh.

This solution fulfils Philip's wish to past his title down to his son, "rewards" Edward and Sophie for their hard work, makes the DOE awards congruent with the title and still gives them title options for the future should the monarchy survive.

I do think there was a lot of BTS issues and it wasn't simply a case of "letting the title lie" for a while because of mourning - Charles wasted no time creating William and Kate PPOW when most have had to wait a few months. But I suppose we'll never really know and Life Peerage is an excellent compromise to some of Charles's alleged concerns.

I do think all Royal Dukedoms in the future should be life peerages with lesser titles going to heirs male and female.

I agree. The Gloucester and Kent titles are too ancient as well IMO not to revert back to the Crown, especially Gloucester which goes back to medieval times. The current Dukes sons do not need them so I hope something can be done to have them become Royal dukedoms again. I also congratulate Edward on Sophie on their elevation, deserved 100%.

 

[Denville]

I agree. The Gloucester and Kent titles are too ancient as well IMO not to revert back to the Crown, especially Gloucester which goes back to medieval times. The current Dukes sons do not need them so I hope something can be done to have them become Royal dukedoms again. I also congratulate Edward on Sophie on their elevation, deserved 100%.

How do you propose that the Kent and Gloucester titles are restored to the crown? They are settled on heirs male, and as long as there are male heirs there is no way of changing that.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I've been noticing commenters on many websites who maintain that the lifetime conferral is contrary to Prince Philip's wishes, but I'm not sure that is true. According to Prince Edward himself, his father would have made the same request to Prince Andrew if he had thought it up earlier:

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.’​

So Prince Philip's wish was for the title to continue, not necessarily to continue in Edward's line specifically. The essence of the unofficial leaks has been that King Charles III wishes the dukedom to return to the crown in order for it to remain a senior royal title. This suggests his intentions are for the dukedom to continue to be granted in the future (though it will almost certainly be a matter for future monarchs to carry out his wishes).

How do you propose that the Kent and Gloucester titles are restored to the crown? They are settled on heirs male, and as long as there are male heirs there is no way of changing that.

Parliament undoubtedly has the power to change remainders to peerages, and it has happened before.

For the avoidance of misunderstandings, please note that neither sophie25 nor I are saying we expect it to actually happen. sophie25 simply said she hoped it could be done, and I am only replying to your comment that "there is no way of changing that".

 

[Alison H]

It hasn't really been an issue for 500 years! The Tudors and Stuarts struggled to produce surviving male heirs, and a lot of the Hanoverian dukes had no surviving legitimate male heirs either. Then two Dukes of York both ended up becoming Kings. It's strange how it's worked out - but the Kents and Gloucesters have broken the pattern.

 

[Heavs]

I agree. The Gloucester and Kent titles are too ancient as well IMO not to revert back to the Crown, especially Gloucester which goes back to medieval times. The current Dukes sons do not need them so I hope something can be done to have them become Royal dukedoms again. I also congratulate Edward on Sophie on their elevation, deserved 100%.

Well I don't agree with trying to circumvent or issue new LPs for the Kent and Gloucester titles. Just that it is a reasonable solution going forward. After everything (Sussex related) I don't think it would be reasonable to change Kent and Gloucester unless of the heirs requested it and even then there are massive issue Parliament isn't going to want to touch.

With the Duke of York since literally the Wars of the Roses, the joke is he either becomes King or has daughters. Or dies before any of that can happen. It would have been interesting to see the mood if Beatrice was Bertie and thus entitled to become HRH DOY.

 

[LauraS3514]

How do you propose that the Kent and Gloucester titles are restored to the crown? They are settled on heirs male, and as long as there are male heirs there is no way of changing that.

Gloucester has more of a chance of reverting to The Crown than Kent does. All it would take would be if Xan (Lord Culloden) eventually had only daughters.

Kent is undoubtedly gone unless parliament intervenes: there are eight males in line to inherit the dukedom and they would all have to fail to have sons of their own.

 

[SLV]

If Edward still lives when William's children get married and get their titles what do you think will happen to the title? I wonder if William could give it to James in that case after Edward. But maybe it would just go unused until another generation perhaps. Or maybe the same thing will happen again where Charlotte or Louis will just wait for the title for a while after their wedding and use some other title.

Perhaps they will designate Louis with the DoE-awards and give him an earldom at his marriage, with the idea to give him the dukedom when it becomes free.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Kent is undoubtedly gone unless parliament intervenes: there are eight males in line to inherit the dukedom and they would all have to fail to have sons of their own.

To be a bit more exact, they would have to fail to have "heirs male of the body lawfully begotten" of their own. If they had a dozen sons between them, but all the said sons were either born out of wedlock, adopted, born via surrogacy, conceived via donated sperm/eggs, or legally registered as female at birth, the dukedom would go extinct, as any of the aforementioned categories of sons would not qualify as "heirs male of the body lawfully begotten", which is a legal term with its genesis in medieval law.

 

[LauraS3514]

To be a bit more exact, they would have to fail to have "heirs male of the body lawfully begotten" of their own. If they had a dozen sons between them, but all the said sons were either born out of wedlock, adopted, born via surrogacy, conceived via donated sperm/eggs, or legally registered as female at birth, the dukedom would go extinct, as any of the aforementioned categories of sons would not qualify as "heirs male of the body lawfully begotten", which is a legal term with its genesis in medieval law.

? Of course!

 

[tommy100]

The dukedoms or Gloucester and Kent could only be taken away from the current lines of succession by an act of Parliament right?
Thus it is not even something Charles or in time William could do of their own will as it would require the support of Parliament. Whilst I'm sure Parliament would vote through any legislation in the end it would probably involve a lot of side debate about female rights to inherit and the like as well.

I guess in theory Charles would do this, and maybe even agree to new Dukedoms in return for those affected but it won't happen.

In light of this it makes real sense to grant Royal Dukedoms for lifetime only. I can see some sort of role Charlotte or Louis with the DoE scheme after Edward.

 

[Somebody]

I've been noticing commenters on many websites who maintain that the lifetime conferral is contrary to Prince Philip's wishes, but I'm not sure that is true. According to Prince Edward himself, his father would have made the same request to Prince Andrew if he had thought it up earlier:

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.’​

So Prince Philip's wish was for the title to continue, not necessarily to continue in Edward's line specifically. The essence of the unofficial leaks has been that King Charles III wishes the dukedom to return to the crown in order for it to remain a senior royal title. This suggests his intentions are for the dukedom to continue to be granted in the future (though it will almost certainly be a matter for future monarchs to carry out his wishes).

My interpretation is that he wanted the title to continue in his male-line (just like he wanted his surname to pass on from generation to generation). A life-time peerage does not follow that wish as it will be discontinued after his son dies, while that son does have a male-heir. I am pretty sure he would not have considered that Charles might divert his wish into awarding a life-time peerage instead of the peerage with the traditional male-line inheritance remainder.

Parliament undoubtedly has the power to change remainders to peerages, and it has happened before.

For the avoidance of misunderstandings, please note that neither sophie25 nor I are saying we expect it to actually happen. sophie25 simply said she hoped it could be done, and I am only replying to your comment that "there is no way of changing that".

Can you provide examples of peerages for which the remainder was changed? I am aware of an example in which the same peerage was created twice for the same person to be able to add a different remainder (Duke of Fife) to ensure it could be passed on; however, I am not aware of any changes in an existing peerage. Thanks in advance!

 

[Somebody]

The dukedoms or Gloucester and Kent could only be taken away from the current lines of succession by an act of Parliament right?
Thus it is not even something Charles or in time William could do of their own will as it would require the support of Parliament. Whilst I'm sure Parliament would vote through any legislation in the end it would probably involve a lot of side debate about female rights to inherit and the like as well.

I guess in theory Charles would do this, and maybe even agree to new Dukedoms in return for those affected but it won't happen.

In light of this it makes real sense to grant Royal Dukedoms for lifetime only. I can see some sort of role Charlotte or Louis with the DoE scheme after Edward.

What do you mean by 'taken away from the current lines of succession'? It is not the peerages that are in the line of succession but the holders of the peerage - and the future Duke of Kent (Lord Downpatrick; so not the next Duke but the one after him) is not in the line of succession as he is Roman Catholic. So, there is no relation to being in the line of succession.

 

[Alison H]

Parliament hasn't got the time or inclination to take dukedoms away, remove people from the line of succession or remove anyone's right to the style of HRH. And it would look very mean to pick on the Kents and Gloucesters. It looks as if royal dukedoms will not be hereditary going forward, tbough.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

What do you mean by 'taken away from the current lines of succession'? It is not the peerages that are in the line of succession but the holders of the peerage - and the future Duke of Kent (Lord Downpatrick; so not the next Duke but the one after him) is not in the line of succession as he is Roman Catholic. So, there is no relation to being in the line of succession.

Aren't you thinking of the line of succession to the throne? The line of succession to each dukedom is independent of the line of succession to the throne. The line of succession to each royal dukedom is determined by the letters patent of creation (and Roman Catholics are not excluded), whereas the line of succession to the throne is primarily determined by the Act of Settlement 1700 (and does exclude Roman Catholics and all other non-Protestants).