Future Titles and Dukedoms for the Wales Children


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If Charles wanted Edinburgh for Charlotte, he would not have given it to Edward.

He had a public promise to give it to Edward and Charlotte is currently a child with no cause to receive it. He only gave it to Edward for life. Perhaps the title will still not be available when the time comes for Charlotte to get something, but Charles certainly made it available for someone in the future, as opposed to giving it to his nephew. And perhaps there is another agreement Charlotte will get it after Edward that we don't know about, yet.
 
If William is king when a dukedom would be given to Louis, the dukedom of Cambridge still seems the most likely. It's one with a personal connection for William and Catherine, so a great one to give to one of their children.
 
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.

If they decide to give peerages to female family members, I hope Anne will get the first one. She's earned it!
 
I think the reason Edward's Duke of Edinburgh is a life peerage is so the title can replace the Duke of York title for the 2nd son. Andrew has done so much damage to the title, that no one will want to be associated with him or being a York.

It would be a honor for the title go to the 2nd child regardless of gender. Charlotte, Duchess of Edinburgh sounds lovely. : )

Why couldn't Louis get one of William's lesser titles, like the Earl of Strathearn ?
 
Various Dukes of York have disgraced themselves over the centuries. However that hasn’t prevented succeeding monarchs from giving this ancient title to their own sons. I agree though that in the 21st Century it’s more likely to go to George’s second son if he has one, there’s still a British monarchy and he is not in private life.

And loading Charlotte up with a Duchess title as well as that of Princess Royal which she will almost certainly be given at some time in William’s reign, is surely overkill. Especially as younger children of the monarch may well choose to have private lives and careers when they become adults.

I do honestly see the BRF adopting the European model of just the heir (and wife/husband) working for the monarchy in the future and younger siblings will be free to live as they wish.
 
Duke(ess) of London?
I think this would be a great peerage to create for Charlotte as it shows the significance of her being the first princess to be created a duchess in her own right. It would also be great if they made her spouse duke/duchess consort and her kids princes/princesses of her duchy.

For Louis they can either revive one of the extinct dukedoms or also create a new one.

In the rare event that George gets married before Charles dies it would be cool if they made him Duke of Cambridge since George III had a grandson named Prince George, Duke of Cambridge. Otherwise he’ll automatically become Duke of Cornwall and then William will create him Prince of Wales.
 
I think Prince George could have the title of Duke of Cambridge in the future, it would be interesting since William also had that title.
 
I think Prince George could have the title of Duke of Cambridge in the future, it would be interesting since William also had that title.
He’ll only be given a dukedom besides Cornwall if he marries before Charles dies. However Charles or William could always decide to go against the tradition Elizabeth introduced of granting dukedoms on the prince’s (and now princess’) wedding day.
 
He’ll only be given a dukedom besides Cornwall if he marries before Charles dies. However Charles or William could always decide to go against the tradition Elizabeth introduced of granting dukedoms on the prince’s (and now princess’) wedding day.
If George marries before Charles dies, he cannot be made Duke of Cambridge because that title is already taken - by William. It only becomes available to be recreated once it merges with the crown - i.e. when William becomes king.
 
If George marries before Charles dies, he cannot be made Duke of Cambridge because that title is already taken - by William. It only becomes available to be recreated once it merges with the crown - i.e. when William becomes king.
I see, then the dukedom of Cambridge will likely go to one of George's grandchildren.
 
I see, then the dukedom of Cambridge will likely go to one of George's grandchildren.
Or George’s children - or Louis. As soon as the Dukedom of Cambridge merges with the crown George becomes Duke of Cornwall so there is no need for him to be granted a separate Dukedom. If Louis marries after William is king, assuming William decides to grant titles on marriage, the Dukedom would be available to recreate.
 
Or George’s children - or Louis. As soon as the Dukedom of Cambridge merges with the crown George becomes Duke of Cornwall so there is no need for him to be granted a separate Dukedom. If Louis marries after William is king, assuming William decides to grant titles on marriage, the Dukedom would be available to recreate.
I guess I got confused, I should have said children. But yes Cambridge can go to Charlotte, Louis, or one of George’s kids.
 
I think they could also use the Wessex-to-Edinburgh model, if needed: hand out an earldom uppon marriage with the promise for a dukedom once it is available.
 
However Charles or William could always decide to go against the tradition Elizabeth introduced of granting dukedoms on the prince’s (and now princess’) wedding day.

Agreed. While Queen Elizabeth II modeled many good practices for her successors to emulate, I've never understood why so many royal watchers treat the new traditions she introduced (like reserving dukedoms for married princes) as if they are binding on her successors. After all, she herself was adapting to the times rather than imitating everything her father did.

I think the strongest reason for reverting to the pre-Elizabeth II tradition of granting dukedoms before marriage is that in this day and age, when most "commoners" prefer using names rather than titles to refer to famous people (how often does the public or media say "The Right Honourable Sir Keir Starmer, MP, Prime Minister", and how often do they say "Keir Starmer"?), and it is quite difficult for a fwho becomes famous under a certain name to convince the public to begin referencing them by a new name (one celebrity is still "Brooklyn Beckham" to the public and media, even though he became "Brooklyn Peltz Beckham" on marriage), the later a dukedom is received the less likely it is to "catch on" in the public's minds. Even today, William (whose title was first changed when he was 29) and Harry (whose title was changed when he was 33) are generally referred to by the public and media by their birth titles of "Prince William" and "Prince Harry".

And loading Charlotte up with a Duchess title as well as that of Princess Royal which she will almost certainly be given at some time in William’s reign, is surely overkill.

I don't think there have been any reports thus far that the King or Prince of Wales intend to grant Charlotte the title of Princess Royal after it is vacated by Anne, whereas there has been one report that Charles would like it if she became the next Duchess of Edinburgh after Edward vacates that title. With those very slender indications, it is probably too early to say one way or another.
 
I don’t think William would want to burden Charlotte and Louis with any new titles while they’re still young…

When (if) they marry, the question becomes more urgent as they then have to decide what to call the spouse as well…

I strongly doubt either Charles or William thinks about the Princess Royal/York/Edinburgh titles at all… They know for that to happen, Anne, Andrew and Edward will have to die, wich i’m sure is a very very sad thought for them both…

I can also imagine a solution where only George becomes a Duke (wich he ofcourse will upon Williams accession) and Charlotte and Louis recives lesser titles in their own right, as Dukedoms are simply not needed for them (for other reasons than tradition)
 
Charlotte won't be made Duke/Duchess of London because it's not a royal dukedom. Anyway, we all hear enough about London! I'd say that York would be the obvious one, if they're going to start granting princesses dukedoms in their own right, unless they want to let it lie low for a bit. But I think it's far more likely that Charlotte will become Princess Royal in due time - hopefully a long way into the future.
 
Being Princess Royal doesn't mean she can't also be a Duchess. Princess Royal is a title, not a peerage. Its not something she can pass on.

This ridiculous idea 'oh we modernized the royal family, women inherit equally' but stopped there? Sorry but if its equal, either all children of the monarch get a duchy, or only the heir gets a title. If they dont want to run out of duchies which seems the ridiculous excuse people give for not giving to girls (would if William and Kate have six sons, they have only given duchies to the first few so they didn't run out?) then make life time peerages like Duke of Edinburgh was now made.

Needs to be done to the aristocracy as well. Not retroactively (so not piss off any current male heirs who'd lose it) unless the family has no male heir and wishes for it to be done. 21st century, if a woman can inherit over a brother to the throne, they should be able to inherit a dukedom. Follow Spain.
 
Needs to be done to the aristocracy as well. Not retroactively (so not piss off any current male heirs who'd lose it) unless the family has no male heir and wishes for it to be done. 21st century, if a woman can inherit over a brother to the throne, they should be able to inherit a dukedom. Follow Spain.
The difference between British and Spanish peerage law makes this a Herculean task. To alter the succession laws that govern a peerage in the UK, each peerage would need to be amended, individually. They cannot, legally, be amended en masse, the way that Spanish peerages can. That's already been determined. No British government is going to spend its time ensuring that hereditary peerages are made less discriminatory. The optics of spending valuable legislative time on that, when faced with all the other issues currently facing the UK and its constituent nations, make that a non-starter.
 
Agreed. While Queen Elizabeth II modeled many good practices for her successors to emulate, I've never understood why so many royal watchers treat the new traditions she introduced (like reserving dukedoms for married princes) as if they are binding on her successors. After all, she herself was adapting to the times rather than imitating everything her father did.

I think the strongest reason for reverting to the pre-Elizabeth II tradition of granting dukedoms before marriage is that in this day and age, when most "commoners" prefer using names rather than titles to refer to famous people (how often does the public or media say "The Right Honourable Sir Keir Starmer, MP, Prime Minister", and how often do they say "Keir Starmer"?), and it is quite difficult for a fwho becomes famous under a certain name to convince the public to begin referencing them by a new name (one celebrity is still "Brooklyn Beckham" to the public and media, even though he became "Brooklyn Peltz Beckham" on marriage), the later a dukedom is received the less likely it is to "catch on" in the public's minds. Even today, William (whose title was first changed when he was 29) and Harry (whose title was changed when he was 33) are generally referred to by the public and media by their birth titles of "Prince William" and "Prince Harry".



I don't think there have been any reports thus far that the King or Prince of Wales intend to grant Charlotte the title of Princess Royal after it is vacated by Anne, whereas there has been one report that Charles would like it if she became the next Duchess of Edinburgh after Edward vacates that title. With those very slender indications, it is probably too early to say one way or another.
Charlotte will likely receive a peerage before or when she marries so her kids (and possibly spouse) can be titled. It’s likely that Edward is alive when she marries so she’ll likely receive a different duchy.

Charlotte won't be made Duke/Duchess of London because it's not a royal dukedom. Anyway, we all hear enough about London! I'd say that York would be the obvious one, if they're going to start granting princesses dukedoms in their own right, unless they want to let it lie low for a bit. But I think it's far more likely that Charlotte will become Princess Royal in due time - hopefully a long way into the future.
It isn’t an existing dukedom to begin with. However they were considering creating Churchill Duke of London so it’s a possibility they consider using that title for a royal duke/duchess. They’ll likely want Charlotte to have a peerage she can share with her kids and possibly spouse and since Charlotte will likely marry before Andrew dies it likely won’t be York.

Being Princess Royal doesn't mean she can't also be a Duchess. Princess Royal is a title, not a peerage. Its not something she can pass on.

This ridiculous idea 'oh we modernized the royal family, women inherit equally' but stopped there? Sorry but if its equal, either all children of the monarch get a duchy, or only the heir gets a title. If they dont want to run out of duchies which seems the ridiculous excuse people give for not giving to girls (would if William and Kate have six sons, they have only given duchies to the first few so they didn't run out?) then make life time peerages like Duke of Edinburgh was now made.

Needs to be done to the aristocracy as well. Not retroactively (so not piss off any current male heirs who'd lose it) unless the family has no male heir and wishes for it to be done. 21st century, if a woman can inherit over a brother to the throne, they should be able to inherit a dukedom. Follow Spain.
And like Spain a male and/or same-sex spouse should get to use their spouse’s title.
 
The difference between British and Spanish peerage law makes this a Herculean task. To alter the succession laws that govern a peerage in the UK, each peerage would need to be amended, individually. They cannot, legally, be amended en masse, the way that Spanish peerages can. That's already been determined. No British government is going to spend its time ensuring that hereditary peerages are made less discriminatory. The optics of spending valuable legislative time on that, when faced with all the other issues currently facing the UK and its constituent nations, make that a non-starter.
In 2023 they introduced a bill to allow women to inherit peerages and share titles with their spouses and men to use their spouses’ titles but it didn’t pass.
 
In 2023 they introduced a bill to allow women to inherit peerages and share titles with their spouses and men to use their spouses’ titles but it didn’t pass.
Under a Conservative government. A Labour government, faced with a cost of living crisis and in the process of removing the hereditary peers from the House of Lords, will have a different focus.

Think about it this way. Right now, I'd guess that upwards of 90% of hereditary peerages are restricted to male heirs of the body, which means that positions in the House of Lords are overwhelmingly restricted to men. That is a legitimate reason to address the discrimination against women inheriting hereditary peerages. But once Labour removes the hereditary peers from the House of Lords, there is no longer a urgent need to address the sex-based discrimination inherent in the inheritance of peerage titles.
 
Last edited:
In that program about Victoria, she granted her uncle's wife the title of Duchess of Inverness, so that she could be seen at court. (I think that uncle was Duke of Sussex?)
 
In that program about Victoria, she granted her uncle's wife the title of Duchess of Inverness, so that she could be seen at court. (I think that uncle was Duke of Sussex?)
Correct, she was given the title since she couldn’t use her husband’s due to the marriage not being approved.
 
To alter the succession laws that govern a peerage in the UK, each peerage would need to be amended, individually. They cannot, legally, be amended en masse, the way that Spanish peerages can. That's already been determined.

Could you cite where and when this determination was issued? I know that you are attentive to factual accuracy, but this is not something I have heard of before (and I am not entirely uninformed about UK peerage law). Nor have any of the UK governments claimed this, even though they have cited every other excuse in the book to explain why they oppose sexism but refuse to remove the sexism from noble succession laws.

Under a Conservative government. A Labour government, faced with a cost of living crisis and in the process of removing the hereditary peers from the House of Lords, will have a different focus.

All of the governments - coalition (Conservative and Liberal Democrat), Conservative and Labour - have resisted hereditary peerage reform.

All legislative proposals for reform have been made by backbenchers (Members of Parliament and Lords/Baronesses who do not serve in the government) without government support. There are backbenchers from the Labour, Liberal Democrat, and Conservative parties who have sponsored or supported those proposals.

At least one backbench MP (Harriett Baldwin) who advocated for women's succession rights to hereditary dignities under the previous Conservative government has stated that she will continue to advocate now that the Labour government is in power.


So the UK is not Spain, and no amount of wishing is going to make it so.

I don't believe anyone has expressed the wish that the UK become Spain. There is nothing inherently Spanish or un-British about proposals to end or alleviate the sexism in peerage inheritance. The UK has already removed the sexism from the laws of succession to real estate, for example, despite the centuries of enshrined male-preference land inheritance.

The optics of spending valuable legislative time on that, when faced with all the other issues currently facing the UK and its constituent nations, make that a non-starter.

Without disagreeing with your comment, it is nonetheless true that governments, even when faced with numerous vital and pressing crises (and it seems to be a rare and lucky exception to the rule when a government never has to face vital and pressing crises), do regularly spend valuable legislative time on legislation that does not directly affect most of the general population. To give specific examples would risk leading to off-topic political discussion, so I will leave it at that.
 
Could you cite where and when this determination was issued? I know that you are attentive to factual accuracy, but this is not something I have heard of before (and I am not entirely uninformed about UK peerage law). Nor have any of the UK governments claimed this, even though they have cited every other excuse in the book to explain why they oppose sexism but refuse to remove the sexism from noble succession laws.
It was back when the debate surrounding the change in the succession to the Crown was being debated. I've gotten rid of huge sections of my personal library since then, but I do recall arguments that the individual LsPs would need to be amended individually for each peerage (and that no one was discussing the Baronetage). The House of Lords Library does have some of the debate surrounding the hereditary peerages and the failure to address them, though. I remember there being additional discussions when the current Marchioness of Bath's second son was born via surrogacy and she was decrying how he wasn't in line to the title because he wasn't born "of the body," but I didn't pay close attention to whether she cited any legal arguments regarding succession to peerage titles or know of a means to see whether her second son truly isn't in line to become Marquess of Bath.
All of the governments - coalition (Conservative and Liberal Democrat), Conservative and Labour - have resisted hereditary peerage reform.

All legislative proposals for reform have been made by backbenchers (Members of Parliament and Lords/Baronesses who do not serve in the government) without government support. There are backbenchers from the Labour, Liberal Democrat, and Conservative parties who have sponsored or supported those proposals.

At least one backbench MP (Harriett Baldwin) who advocated for women's succession rights to hereditary dignities under the previous Conservative government has stated that she will continue to advocate now that the Labour government is in power.

Hereditary peers themselves have brought it up themselves and suggested options for addressing it, too, so it's not like they don't see it as some sort of issue, but it's not something successive governments have wanted to get into the weeds for.
I don't believe anyone has expressed the wish that the UK become Spain. There is nothing inherently Spanish or un-British about proposals to end or alleviate the sexism in peerage inheritance. The UK has already removed the sexism from the laws of succession to real estate, for example, despite the centuries of enshrined male-preference land inheritance.
No, but comparing cultures when they have two completely different legal systems and cultures doesn't do anything. Napoleonic Code and English Common Law have resulted in different inheritance schemes in the countries that employ them for generations.

Without disagreeing with your comment, it is nonetheless true that governments, even when faced with numerous vital and pressing crises (and it seems to be a rare and lucky exception to the rule when a government never has to face vital and pressing crises), do regularly spend valuable legislative time on legislation that does not directly affect most of the general population. To give specific examples would risk leading to off-topic political discussion, so I will leave it at that.
I definitely agree with that, but during the debate surrounding the succession to the Crown act, the following comment was made

"While the holders of hereditary peerages continue to be eligible for membership of the House of Lords, the way in which their titles are inherited, and its effect on the gender balance in Parliament, remain matters of public interest."

Given that this government seeks to remove the hereditary peers altogether, should they succeed in doing so, I expect they will continue to dodge addressing the concern, since it would then no longer be a "matter of public interest."
 
I think they could also use the Wessex-to-Edinburgh model, if needed: hand out an earldom uppon marriage with the promise for a dukedom once it is available.
It worked out pretty badly for Edward as the expectation at the time was clearly for Edward to receive a regular peerage like his brother but he ended up with a personal one. And I don't think he expected to wait until well after his nephews already had dukedoms of their own. He seemed very relieved when his wife finally was duchess, so it must have stung to wait for it so long and be given a demoted version.

The basic issue with this idea imho is that the person who makes the promise is not able to fulfill it him/herself but relies on someone else to hopefully do what they themselves can't do because it can only happen after their death. So, I would not recommend going that route again.
 
Last edited:
Yes i also hope Charles doesn’t give out any earldoms with the promise for dukedoms when they becomes available.

While i personally would support the idea of never giving out any hereditary royal peerages again (to avoid the Gloucester, Kent and Sussex-scenario with royal dukedoms dissapearing out of the royal family) - the scenario with Edward and Sophie being an Earl and Countess while Harry and Meghan was a Duke and Duchess was not something good imo…

Either you give an Earldom and that’s it, or you give a Dukedom and that’s it…
 
While i personally would support the idea of never giving out any hereditary royal peerages again (to avoid the Gloucester, Kent and Sussex-scenario with royal dukedoms dissapearing out of the royal family) - the scenario with Edward and Sophie being an Earl and Countess while Harry and Meghan was a Duke and Duchess was not something good imo…

Either you give an Earldom and that’s it, or you give a Dukedom and that’s it…
What i also dislike it that one is hereditary and the other not. Even more so as the one Couple has ceased to be working Royals and the other is very hard working fot the Crown.
 
In that program about Victoria, she granted her uncle's wife the title of Duchess of Inverness, so that she could be seen at court. (I think that uncle was Duke of Sussex?)
And Earl of Inverness is currently one of Andrew's subsidiary titles.
 
Back
Top Bottom