Future Titles and Dukedoms for the Wales Children

[Hans-Rickard]

None of those countries use "The" or "Mrs XX" in their official royal titles in their native language, with the exception of Princess Astrid in Norway having "fru Ferner" attached to her title (which was not repeated in the next generation with her niece).
.

But UK clearly does since Beatrice and Eugenie’s official titles in the court circular includes ”Mrs Edoardo Mapelli-Mozzi” and ”Mrs Jack Brooksbank” wich in itself is very oldfashioned and would imply that the royal women are their husbands property…. Princess Michael of Kent is another example to that…

The ”The” title in UK seems to have been to indicate that they are children of a Monarch (and for Prince Philip who was accorded that status according to his death announcement)

Perhaps i shouldn’t have made the comparison to Norway, Denmark and Belgium to avoid misunderstanding… My point was only that these countries today not practise any ducal titles for younger children of the monarch…

Princess Astrid is not an ”H.R.H” since she married… Neither is the swedish princess’ Christina, Desirée and Margaretha. Their ”Mrs” is a part of their name rather than a title… It was a compromise to allow them to still being called ”Princess” while loosing their ”H.R.H” status…. Princess Charlotte won’t face any risk of loosing her ”H.R.H” unless she marries a criminal..:

 

[Mbruno]

It’s also impossible to know how big the United Kingdom is in 20 + years (or if the monarchy is here at all)…. Have Scotland left, it would be tonedeaf to create anyone Duke of Edinburgh….. And have Wales left, the title of the heir apparent will Most likely be Duke of Cornwall…

It is unlikely that Scotland will leave the UK in the next 20 years, but, even if it did, Scotland could still remain an independent kingdom in personal union with the British monarch (as the SNP claimed in 2014 to be its intention). And an independent Kingdom of Scotland could keep the Scottish peerage too. So it is completely speculative to imagine that Scottish titles will disappear in 20 years.

 

[Somebody]

Perhaps i shouldn’t have made the comparison to Norway, Denmark and Belgium to avoid misunderstanding… My point was only that these countries today not practise any ducal titles for younger children of the monarch…

While Belgium in the past indeed used ducal titles and now only uses it (but only as an afterthought it seems) for the heir, I don't recall either Norway nor Denmark doing so... So, it would be a deviation for the UK to no longer give out peerages to royals, while the others just continued their practice of using princely titles for royal off-spring. Indeed not comparable.

 

[PhillyMonarchist]

It is unlikely that Scotland will leave the UK in the next 20 years, but, even if it did, Scotland could still remain an independent kingdom in personal union with the British monarch (as the SNP claimed in 2014 to be its intention). And an independent Kingdom of Scotland could keep the Scottish peerage too. So it is completely speculative to imagine that Scottish titles will disappear in 20 years.

The snp is correctly collapsing in polls

 

[PhillyMonarchist]

Duke(ess) of London?

 

[Denville]

there is no Duke of London and the female of Duke is Duchess

 

[PhillyMonarchist]

there is no Duke of London and the female of Duke is Duchess

Would make for a title for Prince Louis Duke of London got a good ring to it

 

[Denville]

Would make for a title for Prince Louis Duke of London got a good ring to it

we dont know if Louis will get a dukedom, by the time he's getting married. and there has never been a Duke of London, if he gets a title it will probalby be soemthing with a royal connextion.

 

[HRHHermione]

I think a lot will very much depend on when the Wales kids marry- under Charles’ reign or William’s. It honestly could go either way.

Charles is currently 74. QEII reigned until she was 96. If we use that as a rough benchmark and Charles is on the throne for approximately 22 more years, George will be 32 but Louis only 27. I think it’s at least somewhat likely that William will be on the throne by the time Louis marries and the Cambridge title will have merged with the crown. Recreating it for Louis would be special.

 

[Denville]

They may decide to stop giving younge children a dukedom, and I doubt if he would be given Duke of London.

 

[PhillyMonarchist]

They may decide to stop giving younge children a dukedom, and I doubt if he would be given Duke of London.

I think it will be life peerage

 

[Mbruno]

They may decide to stop giving younge children a dukedom, and I doubt if he would be given Duke of London.

Maybe it’s just me, but “ Duke of London “ sounds really bad.

 

[doro]

And the future of the Dukedoms of Kent and Gloucester after Princes Edward and Richard?

 

[PhillyMonarchist]

And the future of the Dukedoms of Kent and Gloucester after Princes Edward and Richard?

They stay with their descendants

 

[Mbruno]

And the future of the Dukedoms of Kent and Gloucester after Princes Edward and Richard?

They will be inherited by the Earl of St Andrews and the Earl of Ulster. That is the law and there is nothing the King can do about it.

The Kent title has a line of succession with quite a lot of people actually, so there is no chance it will revert to the Crown any time soon. There aren't that many Gioucester heirs, but, barring any tragedy, the succession is also guaranteed for at least two generations with the Earl of Ulster and Lord Culloden.

The Sussex title also has an heir (Archie), so that is not an option either.

Giving out life peerages has the advantage precisely of avoiding those collateral ducal houses that may linger for multiple generations.

 

[Prinsara]

And the future of the Dukedoms of Kent and Gloucester after Princes Edward and Richard?

Will go to their sons by law and become non-royal.

Kent has many, many male heirs for the future; Gloucester has only one for each of the next couple generations and there is a slim chance it could revert. That's about all.

 

[PhillyMonarchist]

Will go to their sons by law and become non-royal.

Kent has many, many male heirs for the future; Gloucester has only one for each of the next couple generations and there is a slim chance it could revert. That's about all.

the Kent heirs are catholic too ensuring the dukedom leaving the royal line

 

[Denville]

Maybe it’s just me, but “ Duke of London “ sounds really bad.

It was suggested as a title for Winston Churchill, so there's nothing wrong with it, but usually royals have had soem title that has a connextion with the RF.

 

[Durham]

Would make for a title for Prince Louis Duke of London got a good ring to it[/QUOTE

Churchill was offered the dukedom of London but he turned it down.

 

[Durham]

the Kent heirs are catholic too ensuring the dukedom leaving the royal line

Interesting point. Of course if a future duke isn't a catholic then they're back in the lofs.

 

[Durham]

It was suggested as a title for Winston Churchill, so there's nothing wrong with it, but usually royals have had soem title that has a connextion with the RF.

Only saw this after my own comment about Churchill. I would imagine only a figure of outstanding importance would ever be offered London as a peerage.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Interesting point. Of course if a future duke isn't a catholic then they're back in the lofs.

Not necessarily. A future duke could be a Muslim, a Hindu, or (more likely) of no religion, which would still exclude him from the line of succession to the British throne, which the Act of Settlement explicitlly restrict to Protestant heirs.

The line of succession to the dukedom itself, of course, is open to males of any religion or no religion.

 

[Durham]

Not necessarily. A future duke could be a Muslim, a Hindu, or (more likely) of no religion, which would still exclude him from the line of succession to the British throne, which the Act of Settlement explicitlly restrict to Protestant heirs.

The line of succession to the dukedom itself, of course, is open to males of any religion or no religion.

Yes good point.

Dukes can be what they like as you say. Norfolk as the senior non royal duke is RC of course.

 

[PhillyMonarchist]

Duke of Clarence for Louis perhaps? I got a gut feeling

 

[Prinsara]

Duke of Clarence for Louis perhaps? I got a gut feeling

It's probably considered unlucky after the unfortunate Albert Victor and the traitorous, craven one in the Wars of the Roses. William IV is now considered somewhat of a sensible king and person, but 200 years ago he was seen as a buffoon and an embarrassment.

I'm not so sure they'll be reusing it on Louis.

 

[Alison H]

Assuming that Harry will never become Duke of York, I would think that Louis will.

 

[Granada]

Alison H, while Title The Duke of York is ( in my opinion) so prestigious and time honoured in English History, I honestly don't see Louis getting it.

*If* Andrew has the longevity of his Parents, he could be Duke of York for another 30 years or so. The many scandals surrounding him, might fade but won't be forgotten. I would hope to give Louis a different Title. A movie is even being made about the car crash Interview between Andrew and Emily Maitlis called Scoop. I think it comes out early next year.

Retire The York Dukedom for maybe George's son.

Who knows if giving out Ducal Hereditary Titles will even be " a thing* then. I Really have my doubts. Look at Edinburgh now ? Reverts back to The Crown on Prince Edward's death.

 

[Denville]

Duke of Clarence for Louis perhaps? I got a gut feeling

Most unlikely.

 

[Prinsara]

Isn't there a certain or average gap between the decease (or merge) of one holder and a re-creation?

Andrew would have to be not merely, but properly, most sincerely gone for a specified amount of time. If he happens to die three weeks before Louis gets married, that makes the title available, but I don't think it would be granted.

I can actually see them giving Clarence to Charlotte with the idea the unlucky history might not hold for a gender switch, but the rumors Charles wants Edinburgh for her are so strong, who knows?

 

[Countessmeout]

Isn't there a certain or average gap between the decease (or merge) of one holder and a re-creation?

Andrew would have to be not merely, but properly, most sincerely gone for a specified amount of time. If he happens to die three weeks before Louis gets married, that makes the title available, but I don't think it would be granted.

I can actually see them giving Clarence to Charlotte with the idea the unlucky history might not hold for a gender switch, but the rumors Charles wants Edinburgh for her are so strong, who knows?

If Charles wanted Edinburgh for Charlotte, he would not have given it to Edward.

As you just pointed there is usually a gap between the death of a holder, and the title being given. Edinburgh being an exception for Edward's case as it was the desire of his parents. Edward is only 59. If he lives even into his 90s like both parents, thats another 30+ years that he will hold the title.


If they finally update the old fashioned 'only sons get peerages' it would likely be same 'get it when married'. I doubt Charlotte who is 8 already, will wait till nearly 40 to get married, for that title to be open.Even if they chose to grant it right after the holder died.